First Law of Math Conclusively Proves "Transmutation" False

Click on the "Math Proof" link above if you don't need any preambular explanation.

This site is not to prove God's existence, but to plead for a return to Sane Scientific Research and Sane Bible Teaching. Both disciplines went bonkers beginning about the 1950's, and have become steadily more wacko, ever since. Beside some most-wonderful discoveries, are also the biggest gaffes in history, over the last 50+ years. It would take a separate webpage to tally both disciplines' geniuses and gaffes; but after you read this smaller page, you'll still have some sense of them. Basically, the gaffes are caused by biased research, or relying on old erroneous research; aka, not doing one's own homework. So, you do your own homework. This page, as indeed all my pages, is a report on aspects of my own homework, so that maybe a reader is spared tail-chasing, when he does his own research.

First, let's dispel one of the insane myths of the 20th century, the drunken idea that faith is somehow irrational, that faith is an emotion, rather than a reasoning process. In English, "faith" means you believe because of a reason: that's the meaning in the Greek and Hebrew, as well. So "faith" is something you do with your head; emotions are an attribute of the body, anyway (how they sway your soul, well -- that's up to you). So: there's no inherent contradiction between faith and science, and in fact they are mutually interdependent: you can't progress in knowledge absent reason to believe something. That's how you learn 1+1=2, the names of things, the constituent elements of nuclear physics, the Bible. Faith always requires a reason for belief. At which point, you do believe.

Trick is, to be objective about what beliefs you have, such that if you find a belief was in error, you fix it. Like you would a broken window. However, humans' egoes bond to beliefs, such that if they change what they believe, they are somehow bad for having had an incorrect belief, prior. What insanity. Or, worse, the thing/person previously believed is somehow at fault for having been an object of faith. What insanity. Thus, the Scopes Trial, during which a whole lot of idiots spent time spouting their interpretations, and no one got any closer to the truth: Bible clearly was not consulted by the anti-Scopes folk. And the poor guy himself, didn't even deserve to be fined or tried! First Amendment should have protected him, see. So there, in microcosm, do we see the real problem: people are insecure. Has nothing whatsoever to do with the properties of science and Bible. Has everything to do with insane ego.

Tyranny has been the norm in both disciplines, science and Bible teaching. The latter has been largely absent, because interest in Bible has largely been absent: breakouts of interest IN Bible, occurred only about every 200 years since 200AD.. until the Reformation. When absent, religion stamped its foot on everyone. When present, those teaching Bible were often persecuted. Same, for science. The two go together: when interest in God wanes, all desire for knowledge descends into darkness. Then we seek witches and warlocks. However, since the Reformation there has been an increasing cycle of interest, so instead of the interest-in-Bible cycle being about every 200 years, it steadily shortened; that's why you'll see scientific advance occurring, too. By the 1800's, such interest switched and stayed 'on'. If you were drawing a graph, you'd have an wavy upward trend beginning to rise rapidly toward the end of the 1700's, and peaking at new heights, ever since. The troughs still occur, but the peaks get higher. The two run side by side.

For every interest, there is a counter-interest, since any kind of mass change threatens entrenched powers. So, you had an increasing number of religious wars from the Reformation forward; an increasing number of scientific counter-clashes from that same time. And in the 19th century, everyone was ablaze with interest in 'something'. It's been going on, pretty much ever since.

Yet even 100 years ago it was considered good science to bleed someone when ill. That killed more people than helped them. Yet even the ancient Greeks knew better than that. Even 100 years ago it was considered good religion to kneel and light candles, as if even a human being would benefit from robotic ritual. Of course, today's insanities aren't much different: in science, we think it rational to presume that the night's sky contains leftover lights from stars which departed, long ago. In religion, we think it rational to claim the God would be so sadistic as to put a soul in a womb; rational, that one group should fight another group in the name of "god". Or, worse, rational to claim that all religions lead to God, that any ol' faith is okay. Yeah, and if you try to cash a counterfeit check you'll go to prison: how much more, when you try to cash in on a counterfeit god? The real God wouldn't lie about His Identity; but there would be any number of imposters, counterfeiting Him. For people seek power over people, and both science and religion are revered by people: so the potential for tyranny is high. And, used. Century after century. We love our witches and warlocks, so we put our faith in them. And hence become irrational.

For, math is the king of all sciences, and all scientific endeavor can be conclusively tested by math. Biology, for example, is but fractals operating with respect to organic matter. Physics, with respect to inorganic matter as well. So you can use math relationships which 'mimic' the biologic or physics ones you see empirically, to learn and test for the relationships you don't see; and, to test what you think the right relationships, ought to be. Just as you'd prove out a postulate or theorem. So, if you use math to beta-test the currently-structured 'theory of evolution', the theory fails. It's shocking, how easily the 'theory of evolution' as currently constructed, is proved wrong, which of course puts all science at political risk from the science-is-satan people.

Here it must be also said that Bible believers haven't done their spiritual math. Historically, they've misinterpreted Genesis, which is why so many believers went ballistic over evolution from Darwin's The Origin of Species book, onward. Which is hysterical, since Darwin was once a clergyman, and his focus was on biological descent; he knew it had problems, too ("Difficulties of the Theory" chapter, which everyone today overlooks). Moreover, his idea was based on specializations which helped a species survive in its location: that's not inferior to superior, except as 'superior' for survival. In fact the fittest never survive, but it's always many weak and few strong; but that wasn't his definition of "fittest". Indeed, "fittest" in a weakening species would require more specialization, since the weakness needs more help. Question is, how do you classify? If specialization, we're talking "adaptation", not evolution, no matter how long the period of change turns out to be. So whether it's even evolution he observes, well.. he's calling it that, but absent TRANSmutation, you're not looking at an evolutionary process. But if you classify it as evolution, óila! Now you can pretend progress, when in fact progressive weakness is what you're observing.

Darwin didn't do his biological math, either, even though much of what he did learn, is extremely valuable and important. Darwin's entire theory is based on mere structural similarities, from which he infers progress.. completely forgetting the first law of propagation, that a child is never better than his parents. So an amoeba must be 'guilty' of advanced BUT recessive genes for many eons, to genetically justify the development of a biped with the ability to write language and think abstractly!

For, if a species is to specialize, which in science is called "adaptation"; if a species can undergo "mutation" from some outside source; if TRANSmutation is ever to occur: then the genes have to be thus changed. Which means, there has to be a genetic target capable of the change. You can't just assert there is one, based on similar biological structures. There has to be one, else you're just flapping your gums. You can yell at a piece of paper all day, but it won't react. You can spend your lifetime trying to teach an ape the Gospel, but it won't understand. Because, the attributes necessary to effect that change, have no target genes which can change. But Darwin didn't notice that basic problem in husbandry, though he was expert in it; nor (it seems) did many who vociferously criticized him. Nor, do any of the pro-evolution crowd, today.

So the Bible Thumpers of Darwin's day or today, should have done their spiritual husbandry, their spiritual math. First spiritual law of Bible is that you are a new spiritual species as a result of faith in Christ. Everyone knew that back in Darwin's day, having just spent several hundred years arguing and fighting over it, from the time of the Reformation to "liberalism" schools in Protestantism. "Faith alone in Christ alone" had long been taught by the Reformists, and even by the Lutherans. Germany and England were largely Protestant nations. The whole basis for salvation's need in the Bible, is we do not have the mechanism to be of compatible nature with God, which is why there was a Cross: to create one. So, John 3:16, 2Cor5:21 and Titus 3:5, we become what we were not: spiritual beings, as Righteous as God. That's Transmutation. In a nanosecond, not an eon. But, lasting for eons, we do thereafter evolve, and it's a continual transmuting (see Romans 8 in Greek, whole chapter, "glory to glory" verses, Rom12:1-3 in Greek); depending on, how much we want to learn God. That's why we have a textbook to learn. So we can transform, Rom12:2 (Greek). So no Christian should have been offended by Darwinian accusations; but rather, he'd be fascinated by them. For, they prove Scripture true. More specifically, they prove why Scripture is true.

So Darwin's work is rather more important than the taxonomic boondoggle of speciation, where how you classify can 'prove' any ol' theory you like. Rather, Darwin's big contribution is to show the likeness and hierarchy in biology; by learning it, one learns much about the larger UNseen hierarchy of God and angels. Reflected in creation, just as Romans 1 explains. Instead, the poor guy got embroiled in the same polemics which have attended his work, ever since: people felt threatened. Which is ironic, since Genesis 2:7 is even well-translated in English: God directly breathes life into you at birth; so that's the only reason you are human. Which is more ironic, since a bizillion Bible verses in the original languages, say that God doesn't touch the biological process; so whatever happens during pregnancy, is a deadness. Which at the time, no one could know, since all those verses in translation reversed out that doctrine (i.e., "out from" preposition min was reversed to "in", so in translation it would look like life was "in" the womb).

So God, who did know, brought out the real Bible Manuscripts, so people could correct the mistranslations; could have found out God's Transmutation Plan as God wrote it: and thus have been comforted and enthusiastic about Darwin's writings, rather than threatened. After all, if being "human" means having a soul which only God makes, then who the blazes cares about alleged 'biological evolution'? It's not contradicting the Bible, since "human" isn't man's biology, but his soul! For, at the very time Darwin was just getting published, the biggest finds of original-language Scripture in history, were being unearthed by folks like Tregelles and Tischendorf. In America, Joseph Smith was busy promoting some weird 'plates' allegedly dating back to 586BC (destruction of Temple in Jerusalem); which when 'translated', just happened to make wry, biting satires on Scripture verses in those original languages. So at the time, people didn't know much about what the Bible actually said. Nor did they bother to learn, even until today. Yet here are two sets of texts, Darwin and original-language Bible MSS, which when you read them, actually complement each other; not, contradict each other. You'd realize that the physical structure God directly gave man was intentionally higher than all other biological life forms, yet compatible: perfect picture of His Transmutational plan in Christ. Which is one reason why, God gave Adam the same job as Darwin: it was a kind of test for Adam to find someone of the same species, as himself (Gen2:19). There weren't any. Oh, what we miss when we treat Bible and science as enemies!

Do you see the humor and grace here? No need for the two sides to fight: God reconciled the entire answer! And right on time, too!

So when Darwin's works came out, people who hated the religion of the day, rallied to his defense. Those wishing to defend the religion of the day, ran to make "Darwinism" an enemy. What they all should have done, is to really learn the Bible. How ironic, since at that time more people knew the ancient Greek and Hebrew in both disciplines, than normal. Moreover, in translation you can't tell what the Bible really has to say regarding evolution. But in the original language texts just then being collated, copied, and distributed in Europe, you could know. This was a revolutionary discovery, those Bible texts: for the first time Protestants all over the world could be taught from them. It's not that no texts were available prior, but what we had, were far less reliable (i.e., KJV is based on an inferior MSS, so has a lot of errors, and is mistranslated in many places, as well).

Really really notice the timing here: at the very time accusations which seem against the Bible are being made, original-language Greek Bible texts (called "MSS"), which were long known to be hidden 'somewhere', but had remained unavailable.. were suddenly being discovered, gathered, collated and published in the original languages. Which, at the time, many middle- and upper-middle class folks could read: because Greek was the language of science and philosophy. More Greek, than Hebrew, but the Jews had kept up with the Hebrew, and the Reformation was a kind of godsend to them (with the Protestants becoming the targets, as the Roman Inquisition superceded the Spanish one). So these texts could be understood. (OT exists in Greek as "LXX", and that version was often quoted by the NT writers, so at least the references to it are safely treated as 'inspired'.) So now that the controversy over evolution is debated, people on both sides of the issue, trained already in Greek, could have read these manuscripts.. to check their allegations. To check what Bible actually did say.

They didn't do that, else they'd have learned a few things. For example, even in translation, notice from Genesis 2, that Adam had the same job as Darwin! For another example, Bible doesn't say the universe is 6000 years old, people claim it does; Bible doesn't say God created in 6 days, people claim it does. Hebrew (and Greek LXX) in Gen1:2 abruptly denotes an undefined gap in time between the big bang (or whatever) in Gen1:1, and the restoration of the Earth, which WAS a literal six days. At what interglacial period this restoration took place, I don't know, but the fact of this "Gap Theory" being known is as old as Acquinas' Treatise on the Six Days, if not older. There are many versions of the gap theory; the ones in our day focus on how long and when, but the ancient ones focused a lot on how by who: i.e., Acquinas queried from the gap whether the elect angels did the actual restoration/creation, since (presumably) he knew from the OT, that Satan&Co. had trashed up the earth, created darkness in the universe (putting out the stars), etc. [Angels' bodies are made of light. Think of the power that signifies. Light aimed in just the right place can heal or kill a person; can kill even a star. Atomic particles are affected so strongly by the application of light; they hold together or split apart, based simply on how well and how focused, a light beam is applied.]

As you'll see from the above videos (my Youtube 'Genesis' playlist), the weird idea that the universe (or earth) was initially created less than 10,000 years ago comes from a dingdong named James Ussher, who basically misconstrued the begats as beginning when creation began. That guy lived in the early 1600's, and no one has bothered to fix his error, because he's old and venerated, now. Think how embarrassed he'd be, now that he's in Heaven. Think how upset he'd be that people don't even have enough interest in Bible, to FIX the error or check his work! [If he dated from Adam's fall, he'd be about 100 years short, so not so far off. The big gaffe was to forget the obvious, that Adam had been in the Garden before the Fall, and that the earth was restored in Gen1:2 -- it's not like he didn't have Acquinas who noticed the gap. God starts to number your days only in judgement, i.e., when a fall occurs. Careful reading of the Bible even in translation would show this. But for 400 years, now -- we cling to this guy's tentative work (and even good work), as if it couldn't bear correction, as if it were as holy as the Bible. Oh well.]

So the obvious conclusion should have been, hey, God anticipated this discovery and now we see He deliberately made man biologically separate from all creation, yet compatible with it, so to show us transmutation. But.. God's way. New spiritual species in Christ, kaine ktisis, 2Cor5:17, the text newly being discovered. Wow, God thinks of everything.

See the humor and grace again. The scientists and other pro-evolution people were ablaze with discoveries about physics, biology, geology, pychology, political science, and all manner of natural law: and They usually read Greek. So, since God is God, and He loves questions (i.e., Mal3:10), well.. give them the answers in Greek. So also, the dingdong religionists who'd long mischaracterized His Word, could see in Greek what He said. So those against religion, could point to the original manuscripts and say, "aha! God exists, and He says thus and so!" Thereby, rejecting religion but not God. Moreover, Bible has a whole lot of natural law information in it, since natural law was used as a metaphor to teach the higher spiritual laws God created. So scientists the world over could save time in their endeavors, and find better answers, sooner. But, they didn't. In short, God delivered, and mankind, largely didn't pick up the package. How sad. True win-win situation for everyone, God provides. But we don't care.

Science needs a Lucy to call human. So it ignores the pan-animal evidence of animals who hunt in packs, make tools, have specialized communications, etc. People have monitored apes for years, and seen this stuff. Duh: that's why it's so easy, to socialize them. Can't socialize an ability which wasn't latent, capisce? But oh, if they pretend animals can't use tools, then when they find them using tools they can claim a connection to humans. Yeah, and how many life forms can walk on two legs? A bunch: (bears, dogs, elephants, even cats). So to find lots of prehistoric evidence of hunting in packs, proves not at all, that the hunters were human...

Science has so little evidence of evolution, it has to take whatever it can find, and then pad that 'evidence' to make the theory work. Hence, it must find a trail of life starting with protozoa, and building up to man. So it takes similar structures, carefully classifies them to 'prove' man descends from apes (the Encarta classification of human evolution is a stitch); then, treats the lesser as giving evolutionary (transmutational, not adaptational) birth to the greater; so that when it gets TO the greater, it says "Aha! Here's the proof!" Yeah, look at that ape pelvis versus the human one. Yeah, and "reed" and "read" look alike, too. But what ape has ever composed a sonnet? Followed a religious practice? You can teach an ape a lot of things, but you can't teach him, "God".

So it is no proof. All you have, is an ASSumption between one lifeform and another. A dog has four legs, a dinosaur has four legs, so science treats them as related. They might not be. Lots of words in a language will sound like other words in another language, but the derivation of the two languages is totally different. In fact, you can get in a lot of trouble if in China you use the wrong inflection tone for "ma": one means "mother", and another one, "curse". If you asked a 1st-century Roman soldier for a "baptism", he'd laugh, warning you that you'd need boot-camp, first! [Baptism was a graduation ceremony; word is of Greek origin, and signified the tempering of a sword; so came to be a soldier's graduation ceremony, when he finished basic training. See how we don't do our homework?]

Same in biology. The similarity of biological forms is due to the root commonality of being on a planet with these consituent elements (i.e., all life is carbon-based). So you can't take those similarities and ipse conclude that the lesser spawned the greater. Especially since, as will be shown below, the first Law of Math, no set can contain itself, means that never does the lesser cause the greater, but only vice versa. So "Lucy" at most would be a degeneration from humanity, not a progenitor. If, even human and not a superape. But science doesn't allow for that idea, despite the overwhelming biology we all well know, about degeneration, and especially about psychological degeneration, in which man becomes progressively animal-like. Instead, 'evolutionary science' just sticks its head in the sand, and insists that we who are later, progressed from Lucy-like creatures. This is bad science. Mentally-ill science: defense mechanism of denial, specifically.

So in science, "Accounting" means that when you evaluate a piece of data, you must cross-test your interpretation with other data you have, and rigorously, precisely because a piece of data will look like one 'answer', but in fact may be quite the opposite answer. Same with Scripture: when you evaluate the meaning of a Bible verse, you have to cross-test it across a variety of Bible verses on related topics. In both cases, this scientific pursuit is to ferret out, erroneous ideas. Blind man and the elephant is resolved by feeling all the elephant. Blind researcher and the 'elephant' means feeling all the shape, to be sure of what shape you have. Science has very few skeletons it calls human, and it relies so heavily on carbon-dating which is known to be incorrect and unstable. So it needs other evidence to ferret out errors in its assumptions about how old these skeletons really are, and about whether they are properly classifiable as human. I've yet to see anything that justifies the current classifications, because the system used to classify, is tautological, based on superficial similarities which are asserted to be causally-linked to a supposed progenitor, etc. It matters altogether why one draws a conclusion. Never accept anything material you can't account.

See, the US went ballistic over Enron's accounting, because over time all those off-balance-sheet assets and (more importantly) liabilities, MISrepresented the financial health of the company. Well, whose fault was that? A few people, not the whole company. But what happened? The whole company was hurt. All of Arthur Anderson was hurt. So now, it's happening all over again with respect to Fannie Mae (the quasi-governmental mortgage company) and KPMG; so now the US Government itself, is guilty (they have oversight on Fannie Mae). It's material, to MISclassify earnings, assets, liabilities. Well: it's material, to do the same thing, in science. So when you find a material discrepancy, a red flag should go up.

Look: the biological basis for classifying, is a distinctiveness of great magnitude. Birds can fly, but people can't, so people aren't in the same class as birds. Well, we humans can imagine God, and build civilizations; these unique functions demonstrate the capacity for abstract thought. No other biological lifeform on this planet, has it. So we belong in our own class, for the same reason that "Birds" are a separate class. It's insane, the way 'scientific' people ignore their own classification standards!

DNA testing might be the better thing to use, then. So why, when the DNA results DON'T agree with your assumptions about man's origins, do you ignore them? Encarta reports they did DNA testing on some of the 'hominid' skeletal samples, and did not find close linkage; the mutation patterns expected to get to 'man' as we know ourselves, won't track back to the 'hominid' skeletons we have, so now folks like the Neanderthals and Peking man(?) aren't so related, after all.

OK: but the idea is still the right one, and you can posit rates of mutation, based on the mutational data you have in modern man. Ok: but DNA researchers can't seem to find generations of man back more than 2000 in number, and even that is a whopping guess first based on the SUPPOSITION that 'modern' man is something like 60,000+ years on this planet. For if there really were that many generations of man, why don't we find evidence of him civilizing until about 6000 years ago? Once he's man, it's technically a question of adaptation (man doesn't evolve; if he did, he'd have to transmute and become something not human). So sheesh: if man is sooo old, then why doesn't he adapt for nearly a million, or at least many thousands, of years, and then suddenly, poof! You find cities, everywhere on earth? Something's fishy with the storyline evolution presents, then. In sum, when we ballyhoo Lucy or Java Man, um.. we need to cross-check with other evidence which ought to be there. Like, evidence of thinking, which only a burial culture or civilization or written record, demonstrates.

DNA is the most complex latticework you can imagine, and if even one gene is different, huge changes result. Yet, you'll find people routinely claiming we are evolved, because "98 percent of our genes are the same as the chimpanzees'." Oh, so now the fact that our genes are similar is proof? Yeah, and rats are used in testing for deriving drugs, because of their similarities; so too, pigs and rabbits. Did we descend from them also? See, you have to have a sound basis for a claim, not a stupid one. The genetic claim is a stupid one: all life must have a lot of similarities to exist in the same biosphere. That's why dinosaurs aren't here, anymore.

Which accounting we don't do, since it will rather shake up our premises: we find we've built a castle on the sand. So before we go blithely teaching the mantra of evolution, religion, or anything.. we should check our premises for soundness. Even Darwin noticed that man's intellect is "godlike" in the last paragraph of his The Descent of Man. So if godlike, then not 'evolved', get it? Darwin didn't, and that's the mistake smart men were making then, like Feuerbach: man is but mass in motion, without a soul. It was all the rage, then, to fancy all these impersonal forces, man being the center and highest of them; it was all the rage, to feel one's oats and rid the self of the shackles of religion. For good reason, since religion had been tyrannizing man since Adam's fall, and it had proven itself a liar.

Notice how God graciously gave us the tools we needed, right when we needed them, to check our premises for soundness on 'both sides' of this raging debate, back in the 19th century: at the very time the largest collection of original-language Scripture was being unearthed, collated, and distributed, so also the largest anti-Scripture ideas were being considered, collated, and disseminated. Level playing field: God and anti-God ideas. Religion of all kinds became very active during this period. We talk about the significance of the Renaissance and the Reformation, but the biggest century of change was the 19th. Everything after it, is but corollary, and look at the rapidity! Not evolutionary, but revolutionary. Understand, the proof we have today of Biblical locations, was then being found; so also, real fossils of 'hominids' (i.e., Neanderthal=Neander Valley, where some pieces were found).

So for all this 'natural law' discovery to be raging, coupled with newly-discovered Biblical evidence and manuscripts, well.. revolution is the outcome, and we're still involved in it. The 19th century, blew the lid off history. Rejection became a virtue. Personal Independence became a right to demand, rather than a privilege to cherish. Two potent poisons, for mob rule. And we're still playing out all those 19th-century, 'finds'.

Funny how UNscientific a person becomes, when trying to cut out the existence of God, because he's ticked off at religion. Both these guys -- Darwin and Feuerbach -- grew up with striated religion; understandably, they hated it; but they threw out the baby with the bathwater, and also rejected God; so, on their new religious crusades, they were out to prove their new ideas, right -- godless. You have to ask how unbiased they were. But then, none of us are. Science has been tainted with this sub-radar motive of proving no-god-origin, ever since.

So no one asks, "where does LIFE come from?" The answer coulda been, "it's just there". An obvious answer, since clearly matter and energy, aren't 'life'. But nooooo -- if you are out to deny God's existence, you can't admit of independent life. So, even positing the far more logical idea that "life" is the 'missing link' independent, superior, "parent" -- which you could easily say, without saying anything about God -- they won't talk about it. It's too touchy, see. Just classify "life" under inanimate matter and energy, see. Pretend that's logical, see. And then we don't have to see 'god'. We can just pretend we are 'scientific', see. Seeing, nothing. In psychology, that's called a defense mechanism of "denial". You sweep into your subconscious what's too painful to admit. Problem is, that leads to dissociation, where the personality fragments, in its fruitless quest to resolve the garbage stuck in that subconscious. So 'science' has been suffering from dissociation, ever since. It's something of a comedy, really, as so aptly captured in an unrelated Youtube video by a user who spends much time examining the inherent illogics of Darwinism (video has since been set to private).

Darwin's and Feuerbach's theories don't hang together -- they didn't account for "life"; millions of alleged intellectuals draw their conclusions based on these two guys, and so share in their denial/dissociation. Kinda sad, really. We could be learning so much. But we are afraid to account for "life" as a separate thing. Why, I can't fathom, since you can't really say which idea of God is right as a result, nor should you try.

The alleged pro-Bible people were out to get these guys and their intellectual kindred, so they urged on their faithful a stance that science is Satan. These anti-God Bible thumpers thus proved their own ignorance of the Word, when crying oh-so-piously that it took God six days to make the universe -- the first six days of a six thousand year old universe? Whoa. As you might have seen in the above "Time Travel in Genesis" videos, didn't they prove fools: by then, everyone knew even the rocks were way older than 6000 years. Bible confirms that, since the BIBLE says a pre-Adamic ANGELIC REBELLION occurred for who knows how long, in Genesis 1:2! So the Bible thumpers were hiding their problems with Bible under false skirts, too. But no one Checked The Bible on either side! So: no one accounted for anything, but a lot of wasted time and money. And so it has been, ever since.

In short, no theory is worthwhile if it can't account objectively for origin, which is precisely why Darwin wrote his books -- he was trying to account for it. Which is precisely why Genesis was written, to save man time IN accounting for it. And both books always look so important on the bookshelf.. nicely gathering dust.

So everyone on both sides isn't voting for true science or for God: but rather, for witches and warlocks. So what should God do? Well, we see what He did in the 19th century: all those natural law discoveries, could help us appreciate how vast He is, how Loving He is. Accompanied by, the biggest discovery and rollout of Scripture original-language manuscripts, since the 1st century closed. So there was a hunger for it. Which no doubt, riled up the religious crowd and those anti-religion, alike; but that didn't stop Tregelles and his many cohorts, nor Count von Tischendorf, from doggedly finding those manuscripts and going to no end of trouble, to get them into the proper hands. Before that, God still 'managed', thank you very much, to preserve both translations and original-language texts. So that, from 1st century onward, when the occasional servant girl, duke, or tradesman really wanted to know God and His Word, He would orchestrate circumstances such that the person could come into prolonged contact with a real Bible. And, that person quietly then learned it, and grew up. Or, not so quietly, and was ridiculed. While the rest of the world bled each other in the name of science, or God.

God did another rollout in the 20th century: he added teachers to teach those original-language texts to the common man. So, in the 1950's when those teachers were rarin' to go, He caused a Beduoin kid to find Qumran; and either that kid or someone else, also unearthed far superior, contemporary Greek grammar rules. All Greek grammars written before those finds, had to be retooled. Most, of course, were not, for man doesn't care about God, but about his ego -- oh, the old is venerated, no matter how wrong it is now. Yeah, respect an old scholar who did the best he could but was only human -- but DISrespect the God Who went to the trouble to preserve Scripture and its study materials!

• We saw earlier that God says you are only human because you have a soul (Gen2:7), so we can't at all tell from biology, whether those old skeletons were 'human'.
• Next accounting item: Bible never depicts man as a hunter-gatherer, except in last-stage degeneration (i.e., in Isa44, in Hebrew and Greek, Romans 1, Greek). So "human" means civilized, and indeed we only have historical records of civilization going back for some 6000 years. What embarrassing proof of our lack of analysis. How long has Genesis 4 been available to read, even in translation? What, all those degreed religious and scientific folk, can't read it? Nor anyone among common man? What, did they only have the Bible in the Click language, so couldn't read it for centuries? Darwin surely didn't notice Adam and Cain's sophistication, even though Adam had the same job as Darwin, lol. And what does Cain do when he is punished by God? Builds a city. The guy was a vegetarian, for crying out loud, and was mighty ticked off God didn't want his vegetables. (Meat wasn't allowed for food until after the Flood.) But no smart scientist in the 19th century or since, noticed all that. No one in the Scopes Trial noticed the glaring difference between hunter-gatherers, and that first man, a biological taxonimist, and his first son, a city-builder. LOL! No one even today notices the glaring difference. Instead, you have scientific versus Bible debates inanely raging, millions of dollars spent.. what a circus. Everyone goes blithely on, hallucinating meaning in, and conflict between, Bible and science. It's apples and oranges, doo-doo brains!

• That doesn't mean a young earth. We don't know how long ago the gap between Gen1:1 and 1:2 ended, so we can't say when the human race began. You can say fallen civilized man began circa 4100BC: which happens to accord thus far with the archeological data scholars largely agree on, about civilizations. You can also say that up until that date only two humans existed. But from the Biblical data given, you can't say how old the earth was pre-Adam; nor, how long they lived pre-Fall.

• Per Bible, man doesn't even go through a hunter-gatherer stage until the end of a degeneration cycle; at which point, he becomes brutish, theme of Romans 1; that's why mankind eventually ends (passim theme in Bible but highlighted in Gen6, Revelation Chaps6-19). So anything prior to 6000 (up to 10,000) years ago, isn't even relevant: a mankind which can be saved, didn't exist before that time. If we posit that some other 'adam' preceded the one in the Bible, well.. that story isn't relevant to us. We are "mankind" since Adam, provably; and we've not evolved, since we still are "mankind". For "evolution" requires a TRANSmutation of species, but we can still mate, so by science's own definition we are still the same species, since Adam. So see? There's no basis for arguing this question at all: we are souled, meaning IMMATERIAL; evolution is strictly limited to biology. So it's apples and oranges, no matter what.

If we were interested in truth, we'd do proper accounting, as mentioned earlier. You have to account from the origin forward, and until you do, you haven't really proven anything. Just like circumstantial evidence in court, empirical data at best offers more questions than answers; so until you track back to source, neither guilt nor innocence have been established. In court, the "source" you seek is motive. In accounting the source you seek, is the origin of the transaction. You must classify based on source, or you will chase your tail, in accounting, in science, in faith. But people on both sides of this non-issue debate characteristically and irrationally use empirical data like magic pills; whether shroud or ossuary, stone tool or bone ax, everyone seizes on the relics as if they were holy. This is not science, and it's not faith in God, either. It's simply a sick desire for magic.

Some scientists nonetheless smile at the Bible toters, thinking them illogical and emotional; for 'science' is superior, 'objective'. For they base their erudition, on facts! Excuse me? Remember Piltdown Man? Science loves magic, too! Ohhhh, that was the proof to end all proofs that man came from an ape, in 1912: yeah, because some clever guy meshed an orangutan jaw to a human skull. What's so hysterical, is that the skull of the human and the ape-jaw joined, both dated from the Middle Ages! That makes it a very expensive hoax. People don't just keep centuries'-old skulls and orangutan jaws in their garages, y'know; that stuff HAD to come from a rich person's collection, or a museum. So you just know, someone smart like a scientist would be, put that hoax together. Wasn't until 1953 that someone figured it all out!

So imagine between 1912 and 1953:
• the preening by 'scientists', oh, this Bible is bunk, because here's this SKULL showing the 'missing link!' LOL, one swallow makes a summer? Do you see the hunger to deny God? One measly skull and suddenly it's conclusive proof that evolution is true? Um -- did that skull have a soul? No one asked that question, since no one could prove the answer.
• And then on the Bible thumpers' side, oh the gnashing of teeth! Oh, our Bible is a LIE, I can't trust it anymore, because there's this SKULL! LOL, one swallow makes a summer? Do you see the hunger to deny God? One measly skull and suddenly it's conclusive proof that evolution is true? Um -- did that skull have a soul? No one asked that question, since no one could prove the answer.
But then, no one wanted an answer. We all just wanted to wail, or preen...

Then there's the other side of the ledger, that other goofy thing, the so-called "Shroud of Turin". Carbon dating was off by 14 centuries, because the sample used wasn't tested properly. Even Encarta is constrained to explain that the farther back you go with carbon-14 dating, the more INaccurate it is likely to be, maybe as far off as 2000 to 5000 years, but the variable itself has a 8% variance (per 5730 years, the 'new' half-life of carbon 14). It's considered so UNreliable, no one will use it anymore to date beyond 40,000 or so years. Hmmm: that means our whole crafting of time needs to be reworked, for when I was in school in the 1950's, carbon dating was the new god, in science. Magic. The latest incarnation of Tulipomania.
By the way, those claiming the Shroud is of Christ need to see a psychiatrist, since they are obviously too mentally-ill to read the Bible, anymore. God would not leave a full-length naked picture of His Son behind on some piece of cloth. He already did better than that, by leaving us a copybook with Full Naked Thinking that paid for our sins. Aka, the Bible. Elsewhere I've covered the provable stupidity of the Shroud, and how you can tell from the Bible that there wasn't one, at all; so I won't elaborate, here.

Ok. We've now looked at two hoaxes, one on the evolution side, and one on the so-called 'Christian' side. Let's go back to the pro-evolution side, looking at more relic magic which is not regarded as a hoax. So, then: those Lascaux cave paintings, are variantly presented by Encarta as 13,000 years old. The Chauvet paintings are presented as 32,000 years old. Of course, you can't use carbon dating on rock, but most of the archeological dates given in encyclopedias are based radiocarbon dates made from rock (i.e., all those cave paintings, little bits of the charcoal used ON the rock, were carbon-dated). And the other dating methods have big problems, too. So if someone claims cave paintings are 12,000 BC, like Altamira, that date might be completely off! For have you looked at that art? In the first place, someone painted over other art, using it like a canvas, not like a religious rite. Moreover, the painting is the same style as you find in the Mycenaean cultures; the animals depicted are of very modern type, visible even today, in all three cave samples shown by Encarta.
So you really have to ask if those paintings are soooo old. So, let's look at these cave paintings closely: why are they so much more sophisticated, and of very modern animals? I mean, if you could get hold of charcoal and ocher of very ancient type (ocher being but a form of iron, anyway) and painted it on a ceiling (that in itself warns me this isn't a real cave-man thing), then -- since the scientists only date the 'paint' (charcoal, ocher) used, óila! it's 15,000 years old! Yeah, the 'paint' is maybe that old, but not necessarily, the date it was painted.

You understand, I hope, that charcoal can be naturally burnt from very old wood or coal; coal itself is the product of long-extinct prehistoric animals. Iron, of course, is as old as the earth. The rocks around you are likely millions of years old. So if you grind up ancient material to make a paint powder, and then paint with it, you have an 'old' painting. That's why, when art-fraud detectives are reviewing a painting to detect forgery, they NEVER go by the AGE OF THE PAINT. Rather, they look for the type of BRUSH STROKE. It's like a fingerprint. So the age of the paint can be reproduced -- but each artist had a unique type of brush stroke. So you couldn't use the age of the paint to date that work of art or pronounce a seeming-masterwork, genuine -- you needed to verify the brush strokes. Art fraud detection by this method is centuries old.

So why, then, do today's alleged anthropologists, insist that those cave paintings are so old? Surely their brains are turned OFF.

I'm not suggesting that the cave paintings are a hoax; I'm rather pointing out that the basis used to claim age, is one which even art fraud detectives, call wrong. So maybe long ago some people used the cave to paint, but used much older 'paint' material. You can't tell when the painting was painted, by the material used. So I am 'suggesting' we should be skeptical: since a) the animals are modern ones, and b) your average cave inhabitant wouldn't have time or inclination to go through the torturous procedure required to make those paintings. You realize, I hope, that painting in a cave can't be done without adequate illumination, which in those days, meant fire. In an enclosed space. Takes a lot of free time, which who has, now or then -- to paint. Especially, on a ceiling. Moreover, caves were not the preferred method of dwelling. People preferred to dig beneath the earth, because it would be warmer; worse, animals lived in caves and you could never know if one would be in there. But if you dwelt in the open, you could run faster. So, cultural facts like these, which you can find fairly easily -- they don't mesh with elaborate cave paintings, in the first place. How could such elaborate paintings be only in the caves? If such depth of artistry, where are the CITIES? For when you have culture, you have civilization. So: where is it?

Now the art's style can tell you much, and in fact if you major in art history in college, you are required to date a piece by its style, or you'll flunk your classes. So: compare, if you will, to the Australian aboriginal stick-figure paintings also alleged to be 30K years old, which are more typical of rock painting you find in New Mexico circa 800 (to 1800) AD at Chaco Canyon, etc. (I went to the New Mexican ruins in 2002.) Something's really fishy here. How can the aboriginal painting be of the same age as Chauvet, yet be no further advanced at Chaco and its related sites, if man 'evolved'? Our ability to paint in 800-1800AD is demonstrated in museums all over the world, but the aboriginal paintings look like the primitive Indian paintings of 800-1800AD. Very much alike. Moreover, the sophisticated Spanish and French cave paintings are of the same animal-body style you find in the Mycenaen and like Greek and Egyptian art. (I thought I saw some Chinese cave with painting like the French and Spanish in Encarta, but I can't find it now.)

So not only are the art fraud detectives ignored, but also everyone whose ever taught art and art history, in the world's colleges. And we should believe these people 'scientific', when they ignore other sound 'science'? Art fraud is a forensic science. Art history and dating of art styles, is a kind of forensic science. Anthropology is supposed to specialize in forensics, but clearly is rather selective about it...

Next sample of relic magic: Encarta proffers a 'Venus' figurine, but calls it 30,000 years old. Well, that was also typical of the Mycenaean custom and art, of handheld phallic deities -- so is it really 30,000 years old? Mycenae began about 3000 BC; so did someone mistakenly ADD a "0" to the age? And again -- they dated the rock. That tells you nothing about when the rock was CARVED. But the art's style tells you much. Oooh, how we can tune out truth when we want to, yet call ourselves, 'scientific'.

Another example: a mammoth tusk Encarta claims is also 30,000 years old -- did ya notice the style of the art? Sheesh: it's abstract! So how can it be 30,000 years old? If there's abstract art, if there's lots of carvings etc. allegedly belonging to the "Perigoridian" or "Magdalenian" period, where are the CITIES? Where, evidence of written language? Of the same age? Sumthin's Very Fishy, k?

So, then: an African spear is claimed to be 8000 years old, well.. it might only be 3000 years old. Or, yesterday. You have to prove when the material was ASSEMBLED, carved, painted, etc. Can't go by the age of the media. That's true in Bible, and that's true in science.

Any real scientist will first tell you that nothing in science is certain, but rather educated guesswork: "there's so much yet to know" is the true scientist's catchphrase. Christians should be thinking in exactly the same way: God's Word is bottomless, and we should quit trying to use our interpretation of the Word as if we were as accurate as IT is.

People are so insecure about themselves, that if someone around them uses long words and knows facts they don't know, they are impressed and automatically confer godlike status on such an individual. Hence science is deified, no matter how much it protests. Hence science is demonized, if it doesn't live up to the godlike expectations of it. Hence getting funding for further scientific research, is always a political battle between the deifiers and the demonizers, with the result that science has to go along with its deified image, to get the money! Thus the deification, intensifies. Thus the demonization is more destructive, when it occurs.

God being God, science will reflect God. So it's not even possible for science to disprove God. Which, you can tell immediately: everything has a cause, so when you track back to absolute source you are only left with one answer: God exists. Believe that or not, but science will never lead to any other logical answer, because all science is based on cause-and-effect inquiry. So let's forget about using science to prove or disprove God; let's instead fix and improve scientific inquiry; fix and improve our understanding of God's Book. Click here for more detail.

Meanwhile, insecure Christians and non-Christians alike abuse "evolution" to support their own ideas about God, as if 'scientific proof' were conclusive, in establishing God's Existence, pro- or con-. So, such folks can't think straight: so NO improvements in Bible and science understanding, occur. Hence both disciplines, stultify: everyone in each 'camp' belligerently stands on his turf, rather than pursuing scientio, knowing. Our ideas about God, right or wrong, don't justify screwing up rational thinking: for, a thing is either right or wrong, and we all benefit by finding more of the right answers, every day. For, "science" itself is quite plausibly defined as either the faithfulness of God in operation, OR the constancy of a non-judgemental 'life force' in operation.

So let's all check our brooms at the door before examining the problem with "transmutation".

Here's what's right about "Evolution" -- there IS such a thing as a macro-progress and regress over eons of time (i.e., geologic time), and the nature of the organism CHANGES SPECIES. For, the core meaning of evolution, is a CHANGE IN SPECIES, not just internal progress. Internal progress is called "adaptation", not "evolution." Unfortunately, even encyclopedias (e.g., Encarta) egregiously misuse the term "evolution" today, so man thinks some long-term, macro "progress" is the same as "evolution". Not true. Sheesh: our academic standards have really declined, and we've really become sloppy. So first we have to examine what "evolution" really means, before we can say what's wrong with it.

So yes, "evolution", as a CHANGE IN SPECIES, exists. The Question is, how it works, on whom does it work; not, whether it exists. The math about Biology, for example, is (again) but fractals operating with respect to organic matter, so there IS something akin to 'evolution'. Trouble is, "Evolution" as currently conceived is MISconnected in its formulae of causes, conditions, successions and relations: even the first law of math proves the misconnections are rampant. These misconnections can be fixed, again by beta-testing against math; and it is the solemn charge of 'science' that they BE fixed. Unless, we all wanna go back to witches and warlocks.

Bible has its own definition of transmutation: God created you, so if you consent, God Changes You, aka "salvation" (or "hell", if you refuse). That was why the OT rituals were designed as they were, mnemonic teaching aids: believe in God, and He will change you to become like Him, so you can have a close relationship with Him. Christ then is the Source for the Transmutation. So the old way of learning, changed. Hence, a "new testament" (he kaine diatheke, term used in various ways in the NT). So, the New Testament spends its words explaining how this transmutation occurs in you, and it has a lot of key phrases for that transmutation, so the reader can track the explanation: "Christ in you", "new" versus "old" (dramatically stated, in verses like 2Cor5:17,21), "far" and "near", "born again". You are literally a different species of human being, the first second you believe in Christ. The rest of your life is to learn how to live being that way, and the choices you make program you. So you end up being the person you want to be. And if you want to be closer to God functionally, it takes God's Power to do that. Hence the commands to use 1Jn1:9, Eph5:18, Phili2:5, 2Pet3:18, Romans 12:2, etc. Christ Himself was transformed into "the Way the Truth and the Life" by learning God's Thinking from the Holy Spirit (i.e., "full of grace and truth"). So we get transformed now by learning His Thinking (main theme of John 14-17). Note that God Does It. God, being superior, is the larger number set. We, being inferior, are a smaller number set. So our 'parenting' is done by God, which is why we can 'inherit' His Thinking. But He's God, a spiritual being. So, we have to transform into becoming a spiritual being: which happens, the first nanosecond you believe in Christ (John 3:16).

Of course, this process doesn't take long periods of geologic time, so it's not "evolution" by the timeline science uses. But it is a valid transmutation: for example, sumorphologew, the witty word in Romans 12:2 and other verses. All sum- prefixed words denote God Is The Actor, not man, and they are never translated properly, though even basic lexicons like Thayer's, note the solely-God-does-it meaning. And there are many such words, in the original-language texts of both OT and NT. [Forget Strong's. Maybe he understood the languages well, but any student can't learn anything of real value from Strong's. Seems like -- and I'm guessing -- Strong's was developed for students who just needed bare rudiments, kinda like a very abridged dictionary a foreign tourist would use. Well, that might work if you need to ask where the bathroom is, but it won't help you learn how to read Bible.]

The birthing of your transformation takes but an instant of time, that first second you believe Christ died for all your sins; on the other hand, learning how to live afterwards, takes a lifetime -- you have to get filled up with the rest of His Thinking (main theme of Romans 8, Ephesians, Colossians 1-2, most of 1Cor). Because, you are preparing for a new life which will last forever. Paul likens this preparation to pregnancy, in the Greek of Romans 8:11ff. So, "evolution" by God's standards is how HE makes you grow, but never apart from your consent. And it takes one lifetime, however short or long. It ends up being an evolution, though, since you will live forever with God. Note how the connection to God is what makes for transmutation and evolution.

Of course since animals don't have souls, they don't evolve. So chuck all that idea. Whatever looks like evolving is adaptation or mutation, but never TRANSmutation. For unalike species, cannot mate. So there's no way to transmute. Duh. They do adapt within their species over long periods of time. They do differentiate over long periods of time. So you'll see the ape group, differentiate a lot, but ape didn't come from amoebas, either. That would have required TRANSmutation. So, dogs didn't come from birds, and while birds maybe resemble dinosaurs, they didn't come from dinosaurs, either. We were wrong about dinosaurs in the past, and we are wrong about them now. Be careful not to cross the line between differentiation within a species, and CROSSING OVER to a new species. The latter is a taxonomic problem, but biologically, it can't happen. You'd need two to mate who are of similar enough species, to bear kiddies. So TRANSmutation, which is what "evolution" is all about, simply can't happen. Bible doesn't ascribe TRANSmutation to anyone but humans, and then only because God does it to you. So you can't do it to yourself, either.

The Bible book on human origin, "Genesis", was first written down by Moses circa 1440BC; yet you can tell by its Hebraically-succinct, axiomatic style that everyone was long familiar with the basic details. [Inspired Greek OT ("LXX") titles the book "Genesis": means the beginning of MAN, not the beginning of creation. Hebrew Buh-RAY-sheeth simply means "In the beginning", and it's a brilliant wordplay on the "head" connotation of the Hebrew root consonants (rsh): see a good lexicon. Book of Job was written pre-Moses. When you read the story you see the same wording, essentially, as in the Genesis account, and the Genesis account is very succinct. Succinctness is used when the audience is already familiar. The Bible's stated purpose for being written down is to fulfill a promise, viz., in Jer31:31-34. This promise was stated first in the Garden, when the Lord promised He'd come as man to pay for sins Gen3:15, because the purpose was eternal togetherness. God's Thinking in Writing is the most-cherished of all Bible promises: just ask any Jew.]

We see Moses' life story beginning in Exodus. There, you had magicians turning sticks into snakes. Frankly, that's the same as the heart of evolutionary theory, "transmutation". Magic. Man has always had stories where magpies become stars, people become gods, etc. An inferior changing to become superior to itself, through some meritorious action or magical action. Like, Isa14:12-17, Satan fancying himself to be able to make himself like the Most High (God the Son), long before man was even created. So, when Moses penned Genesis, he made repeated mention of reproduction being "according to its kind", never beyond its own nature. So no, you can't turn stones into bread (but God can, which is why it was the 1st Temptation to Christ in Matt4:3); so no, you can't go from an amoeba to a man -- no matter how long you wait.

Moreover, the central theme of the Bible from the Fall forward, is that man is DEgenerating. Historically, the evidence is overwhelming. We can't think, write, analyze half as well as the ancients. We can't understand their plays, their wordplays, and we can't duplicate some of their technologies -- or, when we can, we can't do them as well (i.e., build those pyramids without mortar). We need all kinds of gizmos they didn't need, to do the same things. For more detail on this degeneration process than you'd ever want, CLICK HERE. For the psychological origin of it, CLICK HERE.

DDNA.htm is another webseries which goes into much detail on how God transmutes your soul, if you're interested. It's the most sophisticated set of webpages among all 'my' sites.

So 'evolution' is just another rehashed version of reincarnation or animism, without the God words. You can understand why: the idea of becoming better, is always man's ardent desire. So, evolution is yet another religious claim about longevity: and, a better tomorrow. The idea of ultimate progress of mankind has been around since Adam. The core of the so-called theory of 'evolution' is really rooted in man's notions of an afterlife: "metempsychosis", the central tenet of reincarnation, (some versions of) gnosticism, etc. Term means change-soul, literally: you start out one way, and eventually progress or regress to some other form of life. So the idea of 'transmutation' has been around for a very long time. [Nerd Note: the encyclopedias and like references put reincarnation ideas beginning around 500BC (i.e., brought by the Aryans to India), treating religion before that as multiple, limited gods. I'm not sure the reincarnation idea is that young: it was Satan's claim in Isa14:14 and I can't imagine Satan&Co. didn't sell it to mankind from Adam's fall, forward. Historically, it seems animism is a version of reincarnation, and that's as old as mankind (i.e., kamis, in Shintoism). If reincarnation as a concept is that young, then reincarnation has to be a mutation of the written Old Testament, since only in that book is a true transmutational idea presented -- God saving you and making you like Him. The ancient religions are akin, espousing the idea that "the gods" can change you: but not, you changing yourself. So reincarnation would then be an offshoot of what gets done to you -- the traditional morphology. In the Vedas there are satirical plays on Bible passages in the Old Testament but from 1400BC-701BC or so, maybe even more recent; but the Vedas weren't all composed at the same time.]

Now we're ready to look at the math proof. But once more, remember what "evolution" is and is not. Because, too many people use the term 'evolution' to embrace any ol' long-term improvement. That common idea is not the scientific meaning of the term "transmutation"; rather, long-term improvement within a species over a long period of time is called "adaptation". A short-term change within a species, is called "mutation". Evolution ONLY means a TRANS-species CHANGE. Hence, "transmutation" must occur for a change to be called "evolutionary". See the difference?

As noted above, this idea of transmutation has probably been around as long as mankind, so to pretend it a scientific discovery, rather than a renewal of an old religious belief, is your first big clue something's amiss. If anything, the current definition is worse and less scientific, than what the ancients held true, since at least they recognized that any transmutation, had to be engendered by a being superior to themselves. Thus we know that "evolution" is really, a religion -- here, one which seeks to deny God exists. Which is fine, but.. the prejudice shows. As you'll see, in the next section.

Repeating: "evolution" as bandied about in common parlance (and even among scientists, who should know better) is NOT the same, as the ORIGINAL scientific definition of the term. The ORIGINAL scientific definition of "evolution" hangs on the prerequisite of "transmutation of the species". That's the core of evolutionary theory, as currently constructed. If an organism remains itself and improves, that's adaptation, or mutation, not transmutation, so not evolution. So man doesn't 'evolve' to be a better man: he'd have to become a different SPECIES, and from a prior inferior species, for the word "evolve" to apply. If he stays the same species, it's not evolution, but "adaptation" or "mutation"; those can be either progressive, or regressive. So it's not to say man can't get a better life; it IS to say that the scientific definition of "evolution" is not the right term for that process or goal. Evolution is properly a ONLY a process by which the organism CHANGES SPECIES, via "transmutation" (i.e., ape to man, not ape-ape improvements or man-man improvements). It's the TRANSmutation which the First Law of Math disproves, as you'll see in this section.

Repeating Again, sorry: the SCIENTIFIC definition of "evolutionary transmutation" is the ability of an organism to become a SUPERIOR SPECIES compared to its pristine state, over long geologic periods, such that primordial organisms over that time gave birth, as it were, to highly-specialized organisms, such as mankind. So now, let's look at why that definition cannot be correct.

So, for example, the "ape" number/genetic/dataset is an inferior and therefore smaller "set". So the "man" set CANNOT have come from the "ape" set. Consequently, the "man" set in fact derives from a larger, not smaller, set than itself. Consequently, any similarity between the "ape" set and the "man" set might give science clues as to what "greater" set accounts for both "ape" and "man", but it's always impossible that the "man" set be a 'child' of the "ape" set. Unless, of course, you want to toss out all mathematic law, and just substitute a fairy story:

Because some bones look a lot like human ones, all life just magically comes from chaos...Just because a dog has four legs, and so did a dinosaur, the former came from the latter, somehow? No? It's not so simple? Then why make the claim that a rock can become an amoeba -- which must be true by such 'logic', given the inanimate 'big bang'. For, if "life" is but matter and energy, then how can inanimacy become animacy, except by magic? Oh? Light/Energy can think, which must be true, if "life" is but matter and energy? And this 'evolution' argument is somehow more sensible than an infinitely animate number/ data/ Attribute Set as 'parent': God?

1. Well, how is it that we see life 'progress'? Easy. The property of progression or regression is innate to life itself. That's why a thing can be born, change, die. So, then: if innate to itself, it's not a 'transmutation', but ADAPTATION, so is not outside the definition of 'species'. That some can mate, and mutate, means that ability-to-change within the nature of that life, exist. Some of these changes are not compatible, so biological mating is not successful. Even, in large numbers of lives.

The fact that a biological attribute, via much use, specializes, only seems to mean it becomes 'better'. Truth is, it ADAPTS. Same thing as happens to a muscle when you repeatedly exercise it. That's NOT evolution. This adaptation, if helpful to the life form, might or might not be reproduced in any progeny. We can never say that 'improvements' are always produced, because then we'd all be geniuses, beautiful, etc. We can likewise never say that 'de-provements' (for lack of a better word) are always produced, for then we'd all be Neanderthals, assuming they were even human. [Apparently the DNA testing didn't support that idea enough. I don't have details, just read it on Encarta, so if you're interested, you should investigate the details.]

Then there's the question of multiplication. As even Malthusian theory can tell you, multiplication is not always good. Too much (i.e., cancer cells), and the organisms start to fail. Some attributes seem to be progressions because of multiplication, and in fact this is how most biological life occurs: a blastocyst becomes an embryo, for example, by means of multiplication. However, the twin attributes of specialization and multiplication of themselves do not tell you the evolutionary origin of the lifeform in question. They might provide hints, but you won't read the data properly by ignoring the First Law Of Math. The 'parent' HAS to be a larger data set, not a smaller one. So progression is rooted in the attributes of the parent only. In all events, progression or regression multiply and specialize.

So, in the larger sense, "progress" is in fact impossible. What we call 'progress' is but a set of characteristics which had to be inherited from a larger parent, operating. For example, man's 'progress' is not due to inanimacy, at all: but rather the combining of man's own abilities with inanimacy. Two parents, one larger than the other (animacy is a larger dataset, obviously).

What we call "regress" is likewise a set of characteristics from a parent, or can be due to rejection of one or more of such parental characteristics: and hence, regresses for that reason. For, the child is never more than the parent. For, derivatives can fling opposite the 'parent', and thus become smaller, but never can derivatives themselves become as large or bigger. Again, you'd have to toss out all mathematical law, all physics.. well, all of true science, to justify the kooky evolutionary tenet that bigger can come from smaller.

So we are adding up the facts, backwards. Just as the Holocene epoch's fauna is much smaller generally, than the prior epochs' fauna, it must be assumed that the smaller apes of today, had bigger, not smaller, ancestors. Same for whatever prior populations we call 'human'. Again, because the parent must always be bigger than the child, so that a suddenly-bigger 'child' is the product of recessive genes (or a mutation, in which case it's the mutation which is the superior 'parent'). In short, you have to be careful how you classify cause, especially when tracing out biological descendance. You know you've misclassified cause if you violate the first law of math. Can't be another answer.

So what we are calling Neanderthals and other hunter-gatherer populations, could be more-advanced animals, from which today's apes descend. The big clue that these weren't humans, no belief in an afterlife exists among their remains; whereas from about 7000 years ago onward, you have evidence of such belief everywhere on the globe. The next big hint, is that these allegedly hunter-gatherer populations, didn't civilize. Civilization means a coherence of norms and ideas based on abstract concepts. There's no evidence of that. Whereas, there is ample evidence that not only do animals of all kinds think, plan, and use tools relative to their survival needs, so also do they gang together, or separate, again relative to their survival needs. So it's not hard to imagine, that if there were once these huge dinosaurs roaming the planet, some other lifeform which would need the dinosaurs as food, would be around; else, there's no way to check the dinosaur population. Doesn't matter that we now know most dinosaurs were vegetarian -- because of that, you need predators. And the predators would have to be very much smarter, since they can't compete with the dinosaurs based on size.

Finally, when animals get together, they have a collective intelligence which far outweighs their individual intelligence. It's a Borg-like thing, but you can observe it in wolves, elephants, hippos, gazelles, monkeys (especially baboons), geese, deer, squirrels (at least, I have). When acting as a 'herd', there's a smartness level you don't find, otherwise. So it's not farfetched that animals would figure out how to make Clovis points. A bird makes the most elaborate nest; paper wasps are incredible, in their ability to make an impossible nest, which hangs upside down, and is shaped much like a lightbulb -- the narrow end hooks to a ceiling, not the wide one. You'd think it would fall down. In short, we really are just hypothesizing that the Neanderthals, etc. are human -- despite the evidence, despite the genetic and mathematical fact that no set can contain itself.

So here's what needs doing: first, for populations you believe human which are more than 7000 or so years old, verify the dating thousands of times, not just a few. Yes, that means ruining samples, but carbon dating cannot be effective until you have gotten the same answer a statistically-significant number of times. Secondly, look into those populations to see if they aren't very advanced animals. Which, by the evidence we have, they really must be. Third, if you find a population which seems animalistic and yet human, ask if they aren't de-volved from a higher, prior, mankind. For that latter, will be the most likely relationship, if the so-called ancient population, is conclusively human. Again, because no set can contain itself, any primitive people degraded from a previously-superior group. So check to see if Neanderthal came from Cro-Magnon, not the other way around, especially since the essential configuration of Neanderthal reflects characteristics which show up in severe retardation.

Therefore, the organizational structure of life, if depicted like a corporate organization chart, is thus more like a huge rectangle from which 'descend' connecting lines to smaller rectangles directly linked to the huge one, rather than the evolution argument's series of nested rectangles that work backwards, with the protozoa being innermost. Because math doesn't work that way, and neither does genetics: so in the latter nested structure, mathematically man's attributes would have to be smaller than an ape's. Which, of course, we know is not true, irrespective of what beliefs in God we might have. Either man's attributes are partly connected to the ape attributes, and partly connected to a larger set (rectangle), or not at all connected to the ape attributes. See? The entire evolutionary 'theory' needs to be completely reworked. From scratch.

Of course, if you want to try to say that the "ape" set is really larger than the "man" set, and you can pull it off, then you could say man came from apes. Frankly, that's a pretty frustrating endeavor to attempt; the idea can only be pitched if you pretend that the differences in ape consciousness, behavior and speech compared to man's, are superior. Which, mathematically, you won't be able to justify either, since man has volition-led religious practices, but no ape ever has; nor can you pick some outside inanimacy like an asteroid hitting an ape as the 'cause' of its transmutation. So the actual "parent" of man must be a) alive, and b) Attribute-wise, superior to man, not inferior. (That man can either conceive of 'god' or can learn and use sophisticated math, each illustrate the presence of a faculty of abstract thinking: this attribute is demonstrably not in the "ape" set. The ability to willfully jump from concrete to abstract is itself a separate and superior mental faculty: we see it develop in children. But no non-human has ever demonstrated it, despite all these eons of time. Recognizing this, the faculty itself has been alleged to 'evolve' by folks like Julian Jaynes of Harvard. However, that is adaptation, and not evolution, since it's still man as a species, developing. I'm surprised Jaynes would misuse the term evolution. He should know better.)

Genetics, of course, flatly contradicts evolution at every turn. A tad more complicated than whether a towhead bears towheaded great-grandchildren, genes link based on some kind of commonality and are the clearest way to trace origin. Key to all genetic development is one or more sets of genes sometime in the past which 'show up' in progeny. So the amoeba would have to be superior to man, for man to come from an amoeba (or other primordial soup-life), and the genes which 'became' man, were recessive for eons. Not very likely, k?

So then something higher than man with genes which were higher than whatever it mated with, could have produced man's complex biology, theoretically: if we pretend man has no soul, then the thinking abilities he had, still have to come from at least one superior parent, however far back in the past, that parent might be. Superior genetic abilities can't come from nowhere. So you'd find a provable genetical tracing of that long-back superior 'parent'. Math, of course, would agree: since sometime in the past you had at least one superior dataset 'containing' the progeny. So if the superior set was [1..10], progeny could have some of those 'numbers' (attributes) missing or mutated, but none of them could have an "11". So if it can't work genetically, based on some however-distant superior parent, it can't work evolutionarily, either. And if it does work genetically, even over eons of time, then it's not transmutation, since the progeny shares the genes of the same species which birthed it. So it's still not "evolution".

Again, similarity in genes is not enough. They must be able to MATE. When has a human mated with an animal and gotten pregnant? Mated with, not been inserted with an embryo. it's whether an embryo gets produced BY mating (not artificially, either), not whether a womb can sustain an embryo already formed. Even then, you'd have to follow whatever hybrid organism was born, to see what it became, lest you mistake the initial birth of something for a valid life form. Freaks occur in nature. That's not what we're testing, here. A thing has to test positive over and over and over again, before you can even say you have valid evidence. This, science does not do, with respect to what it calls evolutionary proof, because it doesn't want to wreck its samples. Well, then: you have no proof, especially since carbon-dating is so unreliable.

Geneticists, when they try to determine how old man is, have a better approach, but they also have to make too many assumptions they don't test. They start validly: let's take a sample of DNA from someone we know is human, and go backwards. Trouble is, they have to ASSume rates of mutation, backwards, and they have to assume them for periods during which they have no samples. So they end up assuming how many generations backwards, based on those assumed constant rates of mutation. Nothing in biology is constant. So you can get any answer you like, simply by varying what's a logical rate of mutation, its constancy, etc.

So here's the DNA-testing improvement needed: collect DNA in as many skeletons as possible going back from now to say 4000 BC, since we know civilization is that old. So we know we've got valid human remains going back that far. Then, having done that, they can then chart the mutations in their collection of skeletal remains for DNA; then, extrapolating back farther, they can chart what prior (pre-4000BC) mutations should have been. Finally, they can test those results against any skeletal remains of very ancient supposed human progenitors. Unless the tracing is done this way, statements about man's age and origins are sheer fluff.

DNA is a much better tracing mechanism, it's very expensive to do, and you have to be super-careful, or you'll mess up the test results. But you have to account (and hence trace) the differences genetically, or you have no proof. DNA testing for identity is critical in crime investigation. It's even more critical, in determining where the entire species, comes from.

See? This evolution theory is being advanced without sufficient homework, and we're all bombarded with it. It could be differently true, but no one tests the premises, and the obvious neglect of scientific method, is downright criminal. Just as bad as every religion, foisting its ideas on people so they feel evil if they don't 'comport'. So what happens when some day in the future, it's proven wrong? Then everyone will hate science, and all the Bible Thumpers will trumpet how right they are, and everyone goes back to the Dark Ages. Do we want that?

So here, we have an easy fix: just admit that transmutation has at least one superior parent which has the characteristics which result in an organism (i.e., man) you wanna call 'transmuted'. Frankly, you can easily claim that there is one master 'parent', a superior 'life force' which is extrinsic to matter and energy. Because we all know we ourselves can interact with matter an energy, so this 'life force' can obviously do so even better. Then you can decide if the other 'parent' was some other, lesser creature. You'd also have to be careful about what genes are impacted, since there would have to be some kind of compatibility between the transmuting agent (the 'life force' being the most powerful) and the receiving agent (the 'child'). Since there remains at least one superior parent, you no longer violate the first law of math. Might be that you link up the other parent incorrectly, or make some other kind of mistake: but at least the lie that smaller produces bigger, is not 'playing'.

It's not really all that hard to do or understand: for centuries, animists believed all this, already. They were right, in a way. So if you are nervous about "God" questions; or if the idea of God will be rejected, then use the term "life force". That's vague enough, and logically true: for the largest data set must be an infinite aliveness and personhood, or else there would be no persons. Who that personhood is, well.. that's up to others to determine. Science wants to stay out of God questions, so it can use the term "life force". Simple.

For, what science cannot conclusively evaluate, math will; what math cannot yet prove, Bible will. For the Bible teaches spiritual math. Each metaphor in the Bible, is a numberset -- each word has a number of meanings, and the interaction between words and metaphors, tells you the relationships. Of course, if you mistranslate or misdefine the words and metaphors, you'll be working with false variables, and hence will derive false formulae. The entire works=spirituality idea comes from false definition of what Bible says. And Bible says a whole lot about the structure of the universe, about what we secularly call, 'natural' law. It's not 'natural' law, but SUPERnatural law, and God sets it. We then learn what He set. If we can't handle the idea of "God" (since that makes us fearful), then think of it as life-force law. It's extrinsic, not intrinsic, since matter and energy are INanimate. So, find the extrinsic 'life-force' laws, and you can see better how reality actually is structured; how it really functions.

Spiritual math is God's Thinking; hence secular math and all science is better served if you first learn God. So any 'holy book' might have something to offer. Since the Bible is so deft and painstaking about what is true, examining what it says should be more profitable -- even for a confirmed atheist. Sure, science and religion should be kept separate; but "separate" doesn't mean "ostracize", k? Frankly, the prejudice against the idea of God is really hurting science, and makes it look incredibly hypocritical and foolish. So the other hypocritical and foolish group, the religious crowd, will be crowing over the demise of science -- then we'll all go tumbling back, to the Dark Ages. Seriously, that's the most dangerous trend in the world today.

So if you would be truly scientific, Learn God. Treat Scripture as a math textbook, for that's what it is: the Thinking of Christ, rational, perfectly fitting. Using God's infinitely-superior top-down accounting, rather than man's bottom-up blind groping. Of course, as you do study God's Textbook, you'll be able to conclusively prove it's His Thinking. Takes time, as indeed any good learning does.

If you wanna see the Uppermost Truth being obviously overlooked, keep reading. The next section will go through a longer answer about how evolution and cosmological conundra of long-standing, can be fixed. Solely by starting at the TOP, when sleuthing...

So, let's try looking at the Bible and see if we can find a key to help fix what's wrong with evolutionary theory as currently constituted. The 'missing link' with respect to "Evolution" is likewise 'missing' in cosmological theories. These "missing links" are but merely misclassified. And Why? You guessed it -- the uppermost truth remains overlooked. And what are the misclassified links in both? The nature of Time, and the nature of Life. Their fundamental definitions of both don't admit of higher and first extrinsic nature. The uppermost truth about both, is that they are extrinsic, which is why there IS intrinsic time and life. The first two, are themselves in hupostasis (time under life). So the first hupostasis, causes the second. In hupostasis.

So, once you see the hupostatic structure, you find in biology, economics, psychology, the exact same unity you do in cosmology and physics. By applying this same structure to evolutionary theory, you can re-classify it; with the result that, the theory is no longer bass-ackwards. In short, you have a Grand Theory. This grand theory, math itself illustrates over and over again, without fail. This grand theory, math itself predicts where the hupostatic connections will be. Math, being immaterial by nature yet acting on nature, tells you the higher and first nature of Life and Time. Hence you can always prove the hypostasis, though for some functions it may take awhile to find the hupostatic connections. That latter job is for our many brilliant scientists to unravel.

So once you restructure the classifications/definitions, each theory will 'unify'. To show how, requires a windy approach. So parallels between 'missing links' in evolutionary theories and cosmological theories, will be drawn here. Beginning with the latter, since by resolving it, you can better see how to resolve evolutionary theory. For evolution is predicated upon a particular definition of time, in order to craft its definition of life; cosmology in turn, is likewise predicated upon the same definition of time, and doesn't address the definition of life. Hence, both sets of theories end up claiming the mathematical irrationality that a set could contain itself. So grab your favorite beverage and a quiet place, for this will be a long, windy, (and probably frustrating) ride...

Accountability Premise: Science must account for the Most Basic Cause of variation, and then exhaustively diagram it, before it can really prove anything. Further, this Most Basic Cause ought to be the same cause for all things IN the universe; only the interaction of this Most Basic Cause would vary, depending on its specific relationships with its objects. For the universe IS a unity. Hence, there must be a Unifying, Most-Basic-Cause theory, underlying all others, to explain that unity. To only look at results and then try to back into the underlying cause is a bottom-up approach: frustrating, fruitless and too expensive, unless you have no other way to search. Aristotle's writings proved that fact in spades.

Which means, there must be an underlying 'common denominator' to everything. Aha, that's a math question! Since math by nature is top-down, math itself is focused on most-basic-cause and variation relationships. So you best find and prove the existence and nature of Most-Basic-Cause, by looking into mathematical principles and formulas which seem to depict the data seen; and then, by applying those principles and formulas. For every math principle and formula, there will be a corresponding real-world playing of the same math, so it's a much faster sleuthing job: match the math to the real-world counterpart. This is a top-down approach, like proving out a theorem. Here, we apply a look-alike sequence in math we know, to a potential real sequence in economics, biology or physics, etc. To be most productive, you'd first want to do that sleuthing where there are conundra to solve: such as, the appearance of a set containing itself.

Grand Theory, Most-Basic-Cause: Hupostasis There's only One Most-Basic-Cause, functionally: a hypostasizing of all opposites, individually; such that when they are unified, a dynamic and Synergistic Equilibrium results. Corollary: what would on its own be harmful, evil, bad, is made into exponentially-greater reproductive benefit, than had such harm (etc)., never existed. All this, through no attributes of its own, save its temporary existence in an unmodified state. Rather, those attributes are but fuel or 'womb' for the benefit to be permanently birthed from them. The deeper 'math': an AFFINITY exists between two opposites which should not otherwise exist; but which does exist, only if a THIRD element which is opposite to BOTH of them, is the unifier. I got all this from Bible: its term is hupostasis. That Greek word is used for Christ in Hebrews 1:3 and 11:1 (and elsewhere, never properly translated). The doctrine itself, is all over the Bible, especially in verses of irony, like Isa54:1 and 53:10-12 (latter passage can't be properly read in translation, see last full screen of Isa53.htm). Because everything should reflect its Creator, and the Creator decided since forever past to ADD finite Humanity to Himself, therefore everything finite is likewise hypostatic in nature and function. Can't but see that duality everywhere you look: pick any field, discipline, event, item, idea. That's why the universe looks the same in all directions and at all times, as it is in Dynamic (never static), Cycling Equilibrium (akin to a big bang and steady state, being in hupostasis). So the nature of finity is unboundaried, even while boundaried: finity needs boundaries to have structural integrity, but is in boundaried contact with its Creator; so the boundaries in finity, become freeing, not confining. For the boundaried contacts are conduits, rather than obstacles; just as, Infinity has no boundaries, so also finity essentially functions as if no boundaries, due to the contacts. This dynamic homeostasis is therefore always and only, will-dependent. Unconfined. Hence the 'laws' observed, never limit, but only 'transmit' Freedom; and do so, synergistically. Whew. Explaining what all this means, will take the rest of the page, and I'll probably screw up the explanation!

And there's no bigger, more chaotic quantum physics, than sin. E=mc squared, at the negative end, is sin. So the person sinning keeps on getting smaller and smaller, eventually disintegrating into so many anti-particles. [This is what hell will be like. Since the soul is indestructible, it can only become more and more chaotic in personality and behavior, enjoying nothing. Free will still exists, since free will is an indestructible attribute of the indestructible soul. So all this disintegrating is always and only done by volition. The person always has the ability to change his mind -- but never will.]

It takes a long time, and the speed of disintegration, slows down toward the end, because there's progressively less mass, and hence energy, working (it won't seem like this unless viewed over a very long time, which man can't do). It never quite stops. Behaviorally, the movement gets faster and faster with less and less energy being needed to get the same impetus. Overall effect, though, is that the scope of reaction, progressively narrows. It truly is, a continual death.

By contrast, E=mc squared at the positive end, is the spiritual life: the person in it gets bigger and bigger, eventually being the source for all lesser bodies within that person's gravitational pull. But where spiritual and secular physics part company, where the theory of relativity breaks down, is that the latter has a limit on speed, and hence on time: the speed of light. But true infinity has no limitations, so in spiritual physics, the law of relativity is that as the mass increases, so does the speed. Same formula, but "c" is never a constant, unless you want to say constantly increasing (well, that's not true, either -- the rate of change is itself a mini-E=mc superscripted on "c"). [Einstein's mistake won't show up anymore than the previous mistake he fixed, until one realizes that a "c" constant doesn't account for all matter-energy interactions either. Newton's prior construct failed once the mass was large enough; Einstein's works for larger masses, but not for ALL the interactions. So "c" is not really a constant, but plays in given ways on given limited-mass quantities: which we know, since Newton's construct still works up to certain mass limits, at which point the student switches to the more complicated Einstein equations. So: there's yet more 'above' the Einstein equations. Hence, the right value for "c" is 'c exponential', where the exponent is the limiting factor, and c itself is not a constant. The potential exponent is unlimited (positive or negative), hence the designation e=mc AS the exponent, where "c" is not a constant. Einstein's formulas work on a larger 'set' of mass, than Newton's. So there must be a set of formulas bigger which 'contain' Einstein's formulas, just as Einstein's formulas 'contain' Newton's. Probably something in singularity or the math of limits, will help. All this is in the Bible (specifically, in Isa53:11 and in the way spiritual growth works in Church): so it has a counterpart somewhere in secular math, for all secular math inherently reflects and derives from, Truth itself.]

This is how Bible doctrine in God's System, works in the soul. You can easily prove it, too: the more doctrine you know in God's System, the more every verse 'speaks' to you. So you can know that the audience for those Scripture books, knew the Doctrine quite well. For it was deftly stated, deftly written. Kinda like, protons. Nuclei. Fusion, two nuclei.

So you have two counter-processes: one, a progressive INelasticity (economics term, but also in physics), which is the effect of sin. Two, a progressive ELasticity, because there is an EL behind it. [Nerd Note: "EL" is the most ancient name for "God".]

Hence, in secular physics there remains an unexplored set of properties which reflects how E=mc squared, is not operating, but rather the property of something way faster than the speed of light, which mass itself, keeps increasing -- and the speed keeps increasing the mass. Never hitting a limit. Hence, you need a vacuum on finity, to keep that finity from going faster than its slowest 'parts'. Hence quantum physics, which act like a counter (which is why Einstein's E=mc squared IS capped, really). But even that's not enough: you need a vacuum, to mediate all this interaction, so it is free to BE in equilibrium.

The essence of infinity is a unity of opposites, the largest numberset, beyond which no bigger number set can exist. So it's a STASIS, not a progression. Homeostasis, and dynamic, not static. Hence it is infinity which contains the vacuum, not the other way around. This too, science misses, since the only way this can be a fact, is if the containing infinity, is Immaterial and.. living. Call it a "life force", then, if it's not acceptable to use the term "God". But don't pretend it doesn't exist, or you'll get false answers in your research.

There's no bigger vacuum, Greek word mataiotes, than rejection of God. Everything spiritually true is always depicted in whatever you can see. Because, God sees it first. He loves the Truth, which is His Son's Humanity's Thinking (and Son as God created the whole universe in a nanosecond, Gen1:1), so thus the universe will always and only, Reflect Him. Know that fact, and you can solve any conundrum in any area of secular life: if you only knew your Bible well enough, via God's System. So: let's now test that claim, since it's a type of theory, so should both explain, and be predictive. You test Bible theory, with Bible verses, always.

So Isaiah 53:11 in the LXX (not the Hebrew text alone) tells you how to unify cosmological theory. Exactly: Isa53:11 "Then the LORD [Father] delights to PLUNDER, birthing/carrying out from His [Christ's] Soul's [pregnancy] Labor, to DISPLAY/POINT OUT/MAKE KNOWN/EXHIBIT via Him, the Light." The actual verse is much longer, but this is the part we need to resolve unified field theory. See? Hupostasis. How God makes a universe of Sons, is how He makes the universe, period. Always Bible tells you the secular reflects the spiritual, which means everything must reflect the Son (e.g., Romans 1).

So cosmological theory itself is likewise unified just by consulting the One Who made the universe; and He made the universe, to implement the eternity-past Contract depicted in Isa53:10-12. So now you also know WHY stars are made to be born in black holes, in the first place. The sins, see, never end (hell lasts forever): so how could He actually pay for ALL sin, like the Bible says? God's answer to that conundrum is in DDNA3.htm.

Notice how the union of opposites (here, sins and Christ) is 'held' by a third 'party'. Cosmologists know there's a third holder, and they liken its identity to a pair of "pants". Well, it's not "pants", but a womb. This womb is in turn 'held' by a larger body. In the case of cosmological theory, the larger body is the imperfect vacuum of space itself. Balancing against this vacuum are both mass-and-energy dynamic reformulations, recycling; and, littler wombs, the black holes. Which, when they birth a star, disappear. Which, as a star is dying, forms a black hole.

Really, you can see the same dynamic hupostatic structure right down here on earth: most of your life's day is spent on inanities, which therefore is a 'vacuum'; every day dies, becoming a womb for a new day; everything you eat, cycles out of you, and into you. Certain things are more weighty, so you gravitate to them. Other things, repel you. See -- the whole structure of everything is based on a Unity between opposites which do not have affinity; yet if they weren't united, you couldn't keep living. And the unifier, is a vacuum, balanced by its own opposite, many little wombs which simultaneously process both death, and life.

Hence space is a vacuum, itself, and so the amount of matter in it, must be relatively small. Light in the vacuum is what sustains matter. Matter doesn't sustain light, nor does the vacuum. Too much mass, and the universe would contract (think of the concept behind the "Chandrasekhar limit", but applied pan-universe, or to large 'sections' of it). Too many stars dying, and the universe would contract. Too much light, and the universe would explode. But, due to the vacuum, it's not too much. We think we see the universe expanding, and maybe we do. But we also see it contracting, but in 'points': those black holes. So, overall, it stays in dynamic homeostasis: a steady big bang, or a big-bang steadiness. Heh.

God says the universe we see began differently. And it began, just opposite to what science imagines. It wasn't darkness getting light (i.e., a big bang); rather, it was an initial state of only light, becoming darkness. The Greek and Hebrew of Genesis 1 plus other passages tying back to Genesis 1, make this origin clear. So at the very beginning, the universe was pure light and no darkness. God is Light, neither mass nor vacuum. But Satan&Co. rebelled; as a result, the stars were put out over vast sections of the universe; one of which sections, included the Earth, which was Satan's home base. Angels' bodies are made of light, so light acting on mass and other light, well.. we know how powerful that is.

Bible also teaches about vacuum nature and black holes, with the Greek term mataiotes. [Hebrew term is "hevel" (Abel, to you). Root meaning is emptiness, so when Eve named Abel, she was stressing that life is short and empty. My pastor had quite a lot to say about her choice of names. Abel was a good guy, so clearly "hevel" isn't strictly a negative term. But mataiotes is always used negatively, in Bible.] The term means, someone who rejects God, whether unbeliever or believer: root idea that life is futile, apart from God. Difference between unbeliever and believer is depicted. For God is out to make everyone a star by putting His Nature in the person, via God's System (link at pagetop). But we can reject God's Plan. So: the believer who's become a vacuum -- devoid of Truth, not living in God's System -- is still a 'star', but emits no useful light, and instead is a snare to all who aren't 'weighty' or 'energetic' enough with respect to the spiritual life, to escape that person's gravitational 'pull' (2Tim2:26-3:7, Phili3:18-19, etc). The unbeliever, by contrast, is a vacuum as well, but never had light to begin with, so has no mass, either. However, his condition can change by Light hitting the vacuum, in which case a star is born -- "born from above", literally (in Greek), via John 3:16. This is a pretty upsetting analogy, but you can prove it true. Same, for the universe.

We humans are so prone to assign value to ourselves where none exists. The only reason a believer can be a star, is that God makes that happen. We are all darkness, by nature. Bible stresses that fact over and over, i.e., in Isa64:6. So don't get huffy because a believer is a star but an unbeliever is not. Anyone can become a star via one thought of John 3:16 believed. Forever.

All this is taught by Bible, in Genesis 1:14ff and other passages, because the initial discussion is about why Adam was created: as the beginning of a series of witnesses in the very Trial which resulted from rebelling angels, who put out the lights. That sounds goofy, but it shouldn't: surely we aren't the highest lifeform, living. Each of us has to decide what other types of higher life exist. For me, the Biblical answer resolves all the seeming contradictions. So now I've been testing its answers, to see what it resolves in science. Here, with respect to cosmology and evolution. For as we all know, the test of a theory (treating Bible's answers as a theory or theorem), is what it explains -- and even more importantly, what it predicts.

So if you knew enough about Bible and then learned quantum mechanics, you could see the Biblical parallel in the latter. In fact, that's how I learned it: a friend of mine brought over Dr. Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time for me to read. As I was reading it, I recognized the Biblical parallels in what he was saying. Hence the weavy nature of this webpage, which seeks to show those parallels.

In the theory of relativity, the focus is to measure one moving object compared to another, accurately; it's recognized that all objects are moving, and the constant is the speed of light; hence, the closer to the speed of light a moving object moves, the more its mass seems to increase and the more it seems to slow down. That is, relative to the 'spacetime' coordinates of the observer. So to a distant observer, the time and mass would result in different measurements. Plus, you can calculate and predict the differentials between the two observers. This phenomenon only applies to large and fast objects, like stars, galaxies, etc. which are nearer the speed of light. As a result, because you have these constantly moving objects, and because the speed affects the measurement of time and mass, you can't predict the relative positions except by bundling both space and time together into a kind of continuum grid: the so-called spacetime continuum. (That bundling problem is your first big hint it's quantum mechanics which is the parent, but now operating at its cohesive, aggregate, "general relativity" 'end'.) Further, you have to make complicated allowances for the curved trajectories such mass objects must take, since by approaching the speed of light they seem to add mass and slow up (relative to the observer, called a "frame of reference"); so, they won't be travelling in a straight line: but rather, a geodesic one. This theory has been proven time and again, and without question, works with respect to properly measuring velocity and position, especially with respect to energy waves (aka speed of light).

Frankly, there's nothing wrong with the theory of relativity itself. But there is a lot wrong with the conclusions drawn from it about the nature of Time; and hence, how to measure the universe for its age or origins. Time is necessarily treated as an dependent variable in the theory of general relativity, since that's the only way to get the proper coordinates of a body in space. Yet Time is really an INdependent variable, since of itself, it is neither energy nor mass. So to measure universe age, finity, expansion, etc. one needs an extrinsic set of rules to balance against the relativities measured. For the same reason you need a spacetime continuum, you need a Time continuum. Because, Time really isn't slowing down or speeding up, but the bodies in time are internally affected.

So we need to factor in the absoluteness of time. Because we aren't, we draw crazy conclusions: oh, the lights we see in the night sky aren't really there, but leftover reflections from long ago. No, it's the same 24-hour timeslice across a gigantic amount of space. Oh, the distant light we see, intimates the age of the lightbody being measured. No, the age isn't indicated merely by the distance, you need other information. Oh, but if we say the entire universe is in the same 24-hour timeslice, then the universe is in a steady state, not expanding. No, it could be expanding and contracting in cycles, predictable or no; with the former eventually outpacing the latter. Notice how the same data being differently classed/defined, altogether changes one's interpretation. So mistaken observations are also based on one's theoretical and relative frame of reference in the mind: rather than, on an absolute, independent, extrinsic (albeit dynamic) reality. Time must be an external for reality to exist outside an object; all objects must have a superior 'parent' to whom they are all attached. No set can contain itself. Time isn't created by speed; so Time is the superior parent, affecting space and hence speed.

In fact, we can prove that there is a dual nature to time, intrinsic and extrinsic -- and hence they 'mate', with the result that matter and energy, function. But we insanely lump things together, misclassifying the separate and extrinsic as being integral and intrinsic: so we chase our scientific tails. So, just as we don't accept in evolution the superior God/'life force' set as the Birther, we also don't accept the extrinsic 'side' to Time itself. So, things observed as being in the dynamics of matter-energy, aren't recognized as first existing 'outside' matter-energy. Laws thus acting on matter and energy, are deemed solely intrinsic, rather than also possibly being extrinsically related in a parent-child manner, as well as in the child, independently functioning internally. This duality, once recognized, would resolve many conundrums science faces.

The larger truth is that Time, like math and all 'natural' law, are IMmaterial by nature. No mass, no energy. Immateriality of course, has to mean a Personal God, since we are persons, and no child can be of greater attributes, than its parents. Hence a Duality, a Hupostatic Relationship between the Immaterial and Material, exists.

Read Aristotle or anybody ancient that you like, and you'll find that the ancient common first premise was this very Duality; specifically, that immateriality (usually called 'god' in some way) is the Unmoved Mover. Trick was, to find out how this Unmoved Mover worked upon and within the material (which we today call "matter-energy", etc). Immateriality must be the larger data set, for it is by definition outside the materiality set. So Immateriality, is an overlooked obvious. Which math puts constantly in our faces, by means of its own immaterial nature. So, we overlook the obvious, again.

Infinity is an ABSOLUTE Attribute of Deity, so is by nature Immaterial, and NON-dimensional. This translates into a nonspacetime STASIS. Time would be like a living Georges Seurat painting which God both views and wholly experiences ALL AT ONCE. Including, all past-present-future; all woulda-beens, coulda-beens, might-and-might-not be's (all alternative potential universes and nonpotential universes). Hebrew language of Bible communicates all this by its unique tenses which other languages don't adequately reflect in translation. A cool discussion on Hebrew tenses and the nature of Time, is in Thorleif Boman's Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek. Book costs about $12US from Amazon.

Of course, math itself constantly teaches you the fact that Infinity is NON-dimensional. Not infinitely progressive, but STATIC. Opposite of true zero, the one "set" which contains all others, and itself is UNcontained. While most of how we use math is movement-oriented (causes and results, equatings), the whole of math is but a set of unchanging Truths about relationships. "Fractals" best illustrate both the nature of infinity, and the impact of infinity ON finity, in that you see the entire paradigm of unchanging parent formulas (the stasis, union) creating and then acting upon child process formulas, and then on variables' values; depending on these values, there is a bi-directional effect on the child process formulas; then, the feedback to the parent formulas results in yet more action by these unchanging parents, which then feeds back to the child process formulas, etc. Of course, math formulas have no intrinsic matter-energy properties, but affect all matter-energy. So, the formulas themselves display the attribute of Infinity, as noted above: parent formulas, absolute; child formulas, the relationships with respect to finity. So, the agent being acted upon, is finity.

Mathematical Paradigm Key to Evolution, a LIFE hupostasis: that is, a dynamic and homeostatic union of two disparate natures, infinity (immateriality) and finity (materiality). The former sustains and operates on the latter, and the dynamic is that the latter 'responds' (or interacts bi-directionally) to/with the former. Hypostasis is the governing, fundamental dynamic of the whole universe, so every math principle, physics rule, scientific or natural law, and all empirically-observable data will 'fit' it. So obviously the dynamic will be testable, provable, etc. For, we're no longer overlooking the obvious, the Uppermost Truth about Life.

Problem is, to explain what the blazes "Hypostasis" ("hupostasis", in Bible's Greek) means. Many people in history have tried to explain it, like theologians, the yin/yang folks, the gnostics, economists, physicists, biologists, mathematicians, etc.: they all use different names for this dynamic, but one property all the definitions have in common is a circulating BALANCE: God-man; male-female; light-matter; equlibrium; action and reaction; inhale and exhale; positive and negative.

So "Hypostasis", as summarized in the blue box above, is a UNITY OF OPPOSITES. So the biggest 'set' of a unity of opposites, would be Personal Infinity and personal finity. Any impersonals, would be lower 'sets' (inferior attributes). So plants are not persons, nor apes. So, they don't have the abstract-thinking characteristics, OF persons. And the biggest 'set' of personhood, must be "God" or "Life Force", if the word "God" makes you nervous.

The ancients all knew this, so their cosmological and 'evolution' theories worked better than ours. Here's what the ancients knew which we moderns forget: Science can't function apart from an absolute fundamental standard. The closest absolute standard science has which it can pretend isn't from God, is math. But, even math isn't consulted, today. So, modern science has all these "missing links" which aren't missing, but rather reveal flaws in modern scientific theories. So if you have some problem with a theory, look for a violation of "a set cannot contain itself" in the assumptions, claimed relationships, conclusions. Then, look for a MISclassification which lumps together, what should be separated. Or, what separates, what should be lumped together.

Example we just saw: the essential vacuum nature of the universe, is the unifier between general relativity and quantum physics; one BIG black hole, being sparsely populated with little black holes, so stars can be born, and die, and be born again.

Of course, if we don't want to say "God", we can prove this from math: infinity is a spectrum, most easily seen by numerical progression. At one 'end', you have the lowest numbers (real or rational); at the other, the high ones. So Opposites Are United by some kind of progression or regression in value/nature. So, transmission along this united 'line' or 'number' set, so to speak, can occur. So, it's not too hard to understand that the formulae of life are also hierarchically organized. So, if we go back to saying "God", Truth is a living stasis, but organized and specific; and, full-spectrum. So there are happy truths, sad truths, 'good' truths, 'bad' (harmful) truths. All at once True, but not all at once being on display (interacting at a given moment of time) within finity.

So then, if time were measured by what's so fast nothing's faster, the speed of thought is far, far, faster than the speed of light. When you are in God's System long enough, you recall Bible Doctrine and verses even in your sleep -- djut! instantly. Appropos, in context, often concatenated with disparate verses in Scripture. In short, just the same way as the original-languages of Scripture, are actually written. Even if you recall in your native language. Same is true for regular thought, except that since the Doctrine is coming from God, then you're talking infinite speed. John 14:26, the Holy Spirit recalls to your mind the material. And that's how sins got paid for, precisely, Isa 53:11 -- which makes sense, given that if God, then God is infinite, and only Infinite Quality Thought could pay for sins; and Infinite Quality Recall would be necessary, if the Humanity of Christ, which was not Infinite, is to have those thoughts IN that Human Nature, From the Holy Spirit, while ON the Cross. Exact same mechanism as the conversion of mass-energy in a black hole from quantum chaos, to birth of stars. Isa53:11 is quite graphic about its mechanics, using the very metaphor of light and womb. Every verse in Bible references that nexus: sadly, you can't get that verse in translation (the translated text is only PART of the verse). So you can't learn, the Divine Physics of the Cross! (Last full-screen section of Isa53.htm corrects the translation to amalgamate the untranslated parts.)

Again, to not upset anyone, you can take "God" out and just say, "the speed of thought".

Again, math reflects this relationship. Take a grid sheet of paper, and look at it; or imagine it; or, use the typical spacetime grid. That whole sheet, would be what Infinity, 'sees' or 'contains'. But each coordinate on it, would be the 'experience' of the finite item (or person). So finity 'moves' on the grid, impacted by its relationship with infinity. We think of Time functioning as a horizontal straight line, so you can imagine that movement also (even though it's not quite correct). Now, anywhere finiteness 'moves', is visible and 'touching', infinity. Never out of contact with it. So, depending on the nature of the NON-dimensional parent 'math' formulas (aka, God's Thinking), the way and the speed and the direction of movement of the finite, would be altered. Also, finiteness inside itself must have some kind of timing mechanism (i.e., a lifetime), so the internal speed of that timing mechanism is likewise affected. Next, let us suppose human will: one may will against the internal and external timing mechanisms, with either happy or unhappy, effects; the willing against, introduces yet other variations in timings, with respect to the one willing. But those effects will in turn have ripple effects, and they all inure to the finite item, and to the aggregate of finite items (maybe only within a certain range, but more likely with respect to all finite structures). But no effect, accrues to the Infinity 'holding' them. Because, the opposite of materiality, is immateriality, and immateriality cannot BE affected by what is opposite its nature. On the other hand, anything IMmateriality does to materiality, will mammothly affect the latter.
This is the main reason we need salvation. We are incompatible with God by nature, due to being finite: sin severely complicates the problem of being finite, by introducing anti-God desires, such that the person innately wants to be away from God. We all have this twin problem, it's in the genes: see Romans 3:23. But we can't even be alive, unless created, and since Infinity is uncreatable, we have to be created finite. At which point, there is this dilemma: what does it profit God, to do this thing? Technically, the only way God can profit, is if Infinity could be produced inside finity, for then a compatibility would exist. But how do you 'produce', what cannot be created? You don't 'produce' it, you connect it. Then the finite being thus connected, is 'producing', via its connectedness and finiteness. Of course, for that to actually work, God has to maintain the connection, and run it THROUGH finity. That's how Christ's Humanity became "the Way, the Truth, and the Life". Truth is immaterial, and it connects. If you want truth, you are opting to GET the connection, which only God can do. But He WILL do it, if you want it. So then you ARE connected; thus, in God's System, you eventually get filled UP with that Light, and hence yourself become a star. This sounds poetic and even dreamy, but it is real; and to your dead body, it feels alternately terrible or surreal, once you have enough of the Word in you: because, your vacuum-body, can't abide all that energy. Hence the Holy Spirit indwells you. In the universe, then, you find this same story told of infinity acting on and filling finity, with pretty dynamic results: negative, explosions or implosions. Positive, stars being created and steadily giving off light, which matter then 'orbits'.

So, Infinity in effect 'cycles' inside finity: the finity's interactions are like inhaling and exhaling infinity; finity, meanwhile, is also being affected by infinity, by itself, and by all those other finitenesses, around it. Kinda sounds like the universe, huh. So if the finite rejects what's coming from the Infinite, you'd have a pretty big explosion or implosion. So if the finite accepts what's coming from the Infinite, you'd have a massive internal increase. ("Due Disclosure" link at the top of the Home Page, and "Physics of God's Transmutation Plan" like atop THIS page might help you brainstorm this idea. Most of my other sites also cover this topic passim.)

Quickie version of derivatives' application here: God being infinite, what derives from Him would be infinite. Positive derivation, what we learn of His Thinking. Thus becoming INSIDE, much bigger than we were before. Capacity. Body is too limited, and it's not what's saved. The soul becomes much bigger over time, because of the positive derivation.

By contrast, if that derivative is rejection, the soul so rejecting, is completely shattered. This is why you see Adam and the woman go completely wacko, in Gen 3. Come on: figleaves? They were naked all those years, and suddenly it's a problem? Adam himself could not be ignorant that he was naked, having spent all that time classifying fauna. End of Gen2 says they knew they were naked. Gen3:11 IS mistranslated to make it look like God 'hid' that information from them. Verse should read, "Who DENOUNCED YOU", not "Who told you". Rhetorical question. Satan denounced nakedness, because he thinks it's shameful. And, he's the boss, now. In charge of denouncing God. So, Adam and the woman go completely barmy. Derivative theory, playing live in every body born from their genes, ever since. Except One, which is why there had to be a virgin pregnancy, so that Adam's derivative genes didn't pass on. If God exists, it's no biggie to put 23 chromosomes in a uterus. He only had to think it for Light to exist. Faster than light.

So finity is not wholly self-sustaining, but is sustained by something OUTSIDE itself, as well as partly by what is intrinsic to itself. We need to eat and breathe; reproduction is usually due to the Combination of Opposites (i.e., sperm and egg); while matter and energy are convertible into each other, it usually takes something other than the matter itself or the energy itself to provoke the conversion. Consequently, what correctly constitutes transmutation, for example, cannot be sourced in the organism itself, though part of what's needed for (correctly-defined) transmutation might be sourced within the organism; for, the organism needs something other than itself to even keep living.

Okay, someone might reply, but how is that different from currently-constructed evolutionary theory? It's always been said that something external causes the transmutation. Yes, it has always been said, but what external is credited, and to what target does that external, go? See, if man came from an ape, then something bigger than both the ape and the man, has to be the Transmuting Agent, and would have to be acting on at least two opposite-sex organisms which could thereafter mate and carry on the transmutation. So, that transmuting agent, can't be within the organisms themselves, already: it wouldn't qualify as evolution, otherwise. So this superior parent, of sufficient magnitude to progress all life from protozoa to human as we 'know' human, well.. it has to be SO big, it's outside all of the universe as we know it. Especially because, the universe as we know it, is deemed mere matter and energy -- which we know, is not 'life'. In short, 'life' has to be IMmaterial, or we'd have no thought; has to obviously be thinking, or we'd have no thought, and of course has to be alive. So the difference versus current evolutionary 'transmutation' explanations, and this one -- so to correct the problem of a set containing itself -- is .. God. Or, use the term "life force": but it's extrinsic, and infinite. For, no set can contain itself.

What makes for the intensity? Something extrinsic, intrinsic, both? Is it constant, or varying? Of uniform impact, or variant impact? And caused by what? See -- so many ASSumptions are made with respect to the TIMING and INTENSITY in geologic and evolutionary processes, that any alternative explanations go unresearched. This is not good.

For the Christian, it's even worse to not research alternative explanations, since part of the reason Bible tells the Genesis story, is to warn of satanic power. We Christians should be among the most avid and objective of scientists, for look: all that sudden destruction, giving rise to fossil fuels, mass death -- can only be due to the prehistoric Angelic Conflict. God doesn't massacre animals: His Attitude toward life is cogently expressed in such verses as 2Pet3:9, Matt 10:29-30. So now, in the Trial, when destruction occurs, it's because Satan&Co. argue for it (viz., the Book of Job), or because the human 'argues' for it (wide spectral range of verses here, like Romans 1:18ff but also Phili3:10). So Bible tells the pre-restoration of earth story in many other passages as well: it's a threaded theme throughout Scripture. In Genesis 1-2, the focus is on the solution, and on the Origin Of Man; so other passages explain the massive destruction, and always in parallelism -- so you can know the same guys who trashed the earth, are out to trash you. Not because you're some great person, but as always -- because of Christ.

Here, the story told by all those old bones and sediments, is that Satan&Co. hated Him (Son: called "The Most High", by angels). Their hatred has a kind of 'logic' you can learn, if you first examine Scripture to see the parameters, and then look out at life to see those parameters, play. So what no Christian can afford to do, is to be negative toward science; it reflects the Bible totally; and you need those analogies to understand the larger and whole Truth, the Bible conveys. Granted, the way 'science' connects the dots to get its own conclusions, needs correction. But the data is still presented, and you've GOT the right connection formulas, in Scripture. So vet them. So quit also, the emotionalism, the religiosity: and buckle down to a lifetime of continuing spiritual homework in God's System. Or, don't -- and don't be surprised when a lot of Divine Discipline, comes your way.

For God gave the angels a universe, and they were free to do with it, what they chose. They could have chosen to agree with His Choices, or not. One-third of them, did not agree, but rebelled; and thus the earth and some of the universe, got trashed up. Here, in this Appeal stage of the Trial about their rebellion, God gives us our own 'universe', with all the same options (less innate power, but due to HIS Power, we have the same freedom). We are free to misuse His Gifts, but they have consequences. Especially because, we are not alone, and others are affected. Above all, God exists and.. well, what should He get? What should HE see? We just saw above that He wants to connect His Thinking in our heads, the ultimate kind of intimate relationship: coalescence of thought with God. It's not an emotional thing, since God is infinite (only mass can 'feel'). It's Infinitely intense, this relationship. But, we can refuse it. We can believe in Christ and be forever saved, but refuse the Thinking to be 'poured in' (Rom5:5, Rom 8, etc). In which case, we will abuse what He gives us; so, there are natural consequences going with that result (Col3:25). We can opt back into a functioning fellowship with Him via use of 1Jn1:9 and getting into God's System, at any time. Just as, the unbeliever at any time can choose to believe in Him. But we know we have a limited amount of time on this earth. So the decisions we make, affect our lives forever. Our choice. Hence the "due diligence disclosure" of a Bible, to explain and train. For God isn't the author of pain, but of Pleroma (Eph3:15-19, Greek).

For the non-Christian, it's bad not to research alternative explanations, for much the same reasons as it's bad for the Christian to persist in ignorance. Ignorance is not bliss: ignorance is insanity, eventually. Persistence in ignorance leads to denial, and denial, to subconscious garbage, which -- like a black hole filling up -- eventually will 'explode' into a variety of mental illnesses. Apathy is the worst of them, and apathy makes enjoyment, quickly pale. So whatever you believe or not about God, you can't afford ignorance.

It's sheer ignorance to pretend that finity acts on itself; that there's no higher and wholly-independent external and living 'immateriality' as the superior parent in all events. Intensity and rapidity cannot return to equilibrium, absent an external unifier. Time must therefore be used as a unifier, and it itself, being immaterial but INanimate, must be a tool of that external and living 'immateriality', no matter what 'name' you give to that Living Agent.

We all know that a body at rest, operates much differently than a body in motion: dieting is a multibillion dollar industry. So if all the rates of change we know geologically, are based on the current universe we know, we really have no clue how fast or slow the developmental timing was, since we are looking at our current universe, from its relative STASIS. We can try to estimate a big bang, or a hot period and a cooling down, but our very premises are colored by what we see now. Could be, an entirely different process 'begat' our universe; and, having completed, an opposite process, replaces and governs. That's one of the basic predictions of hupostasis: opposites are joined by a process which creates an opposite effect, post-joining. We see its prediction prove out, every day; every fetus or seed or organism in formation, went through a process opposite what it becomes, post-birth/germination, etc. The gestation period of any fetus is likewise disproportionate in time, to its lifetime once born. So because we see fulfilled this predicted oppositeness/duality in so many other 'laws' of life, we shouldn't imagine that what birthed the universe, is like what happens now.

Would you expect a worm to become a butterfly, if you didn't have proof? There's nothing at all similar between the two stages. Yet, the larva transforms. But, is still the same species. But you'd never know it, unless you saw the process yourself. Same might be true, for the universe, and a wide variety of what we might mistakenly classify as 'different' species. We didn't see its first birth, so we don't really know if it was once a 'larva'. Nor, are we asking that question. Conversely, we impose a larval origin on everything, such that amoebal life forms merely differentiated enough to become human over long, romantic eons of godless time. Ignoring that the quality of oppositness itself, is multi-natured, so might be of a different kind; not all life develops like the butterfly. So why are we presuming via evolution, that it does? Oh, but we aren't asking that question, either. This blind insistence on one narrow way to view origins is not good science. But it makes great religion, blinding everyone. [If God wanted you to have narrow views, He'd impose the knowledge of Himself on you. But instead, a universe is created which reflects His Nature, and as a result you are free to decide what you want to conclude. So there is a set of answers all revolving around a Real God, to account for everything. But you are free to never learn them, and substitute your own. But if religious usage has its way, you won't have that freedom.]

The Big Hint that we should revise our premises about origins: the RATE OF CHANGE in an object may be governed by factors EXtrinsic to itself, or INtrinsic. This TIME variable may CREATE or CHANGE a hypostatic relationship among the elements affected by it. Some elements may not be affected; some, greatly affected. Notice how the affective quality of life creates different effects ON life, due to how time is perceived. We see this kind of change every day in animals, which is why we have pets. People even talk to their plants for that reason (but they vainly talk to pet rocks).

Our big hint that such interaction between EXTRINSIC and INTRINSIC Time exists; that further, such interaction has collateral affective results which can change the intensity, rapidity, and even sequence of change: time is affectively perceived by a lifeform, and hence its reaction and rate of change can be disproportionate to the 'normal' time and the 'normal' sequence. Psychology is all about correcting those affective perceptions. But humans aren't the only ones who literally mutate based on their affective perceptions. Granted, it's not time alone acting on the organism which makes for affective mutation, but the timing of events in sequence, and the sequence itself, will produce both real effects and affects. We know humans can literally make themselves sick due to what they THINK true. Many animals, have less defense: they can't tell what's true, but whatever hits them will be registered as true, since they don't have souls. Plants, which aren't conscious, still biologically react to music and certain sounds.

Even a cancer cell registers affective behavior. It behaves like any other cell except in two respects: its rate of cell division may be zero or slowed, or rapid. In the latter case, the cell is said to metastasize, and we can't reliably predict what makes it do so, though we pretend external agents are the usual culprit. Research doesn't bear that out, however. Some people can be in constant 'evil' contact with cigarette smoke and other deemed-carcinogens, yet nothing happens. Others live a very healthy lifestyle, and die from rabid cancer, despite that. There's no true statistical correlation. We thus impose standards and caution patients to avoid cigarettes etc. because they might be agents of this horror, but.. no one really knows.

The second difference with a cancer cell is that it lacks an internal 'cap' on how many times to reproduce. Medicine tries to impose a cap via pills, radiation therapy, etc. in order to contain the cancer. So, while the internal sequence of change may be a constant, the rate of change and the endpoint of change is not constant. Virtually anything in nature shares these aberrative qualities: well, we call them "aberrative", because we are forever imposing fixed norms on processes. Yet no process in nature truly operates in a fixed fashion. Largely alike, yes; largely predictable, yes; largely the same sequence, yes. But never 100% exactly the same. There are always at least small variations. [Nerd Note: this isn't to say cancer is solely caused by bad thinking. Nor is it to say anyone who gets sick, is being punished (bad stuff can be either an honor like the Cross, or a wake-up call). However any disease is greatly impacted by what thinking is in the patient, once that disease exists. There are limits on what techniques like biofeedback and other thinking-therapies, can do to improve or prevent illness. However, the relationship does exist between affective nature and effective results. You can't really predict it for any given individual; you can only see it prove out in large numbers, and via anecdotal stories.]

In short, there are many variables which cause unpredictable consequences with respect to development (or regression) TIME, so we shouldn't imagine fixed norms apply. At least, not as we imagine them now.

Time itself is too vital a variable in the theory of transmutation. To say it took eons of time for an amoeba to become a man is a mere assertion, no less. Even if the assertion didn't violate the first law of math, the Time ASSumption is a big problem. Time itself is so poorly understood, any assumption we make about it is likely to be materially flawed. Because math is based on both relatives and absolutes, then Time must have those characteristics as well. Hence, at least Two Different Kinds Of Time: one, a timing Intrinsic to the item, and two, a Timing Extrinsic. Again, a cancer cell operates on unpredictable timing internal to itself. Or, it is claimed that metastasization is caused by external chemicals called "carcinogens". Since political-correctness has always plagued science and particularly medicine, what truly constitutes an external "carcinogen" is quite debatable. Nonetheless, the idea of an extrinsic affecting or overriding an internal timing mechanism makes inherent sense: even microwaves cook a potato faster than a conventional oven.

Worse, our methodology for dating 'how long', is based on the most unstable element in the universe: carbon. Carbon changes easily due to a wide variety of factors and elements with which it comes into contact, since it is the main unit of organic composition. We think we get around that, by using the carbon-14 isotope for dating, as if it were 'god'. We now realize it's not reliable, yet we don't revise our past research to correct the dates. Worse, we don't do statistically-significant sampling, to figure out a way around this problem (i.e., whether carbon-14 leaches from limestone, or degrades faster than it does in wood, so to adjust what seems an older limestone date, to its real date). So between the fixed norms we impose, and the inferior and defective methodology we use to date material, we really are fooling ourselves if we think we have accurate measurements.

Bible has a lot to say about the nature of time, and it's multifaceted: something of the absolute; something of the 'relative' the way we envisage it now. Purpose and function dictate how time works. Since matter-energy equilibrium seemingly requires one type of time, that's the one we most see; so we mistake it for being the only type. So it seems (and largely acts) absolute, for the sake of maintaining relative homeostasis. But since the universe is essentially a vacuum, this equilibrating function must be part of a larger, four-dimensional nature of Time itself. We know this, because matter needs something to balance it, and a vacuum would therefore have to be partly 'balanced' outside itself, for the vacuum itself to be maintained. So what we think of as "time" is really two-fold, to start with: time which plays inside (intrinsic) the matter or energy or life; and, time which plays outside. They couldn't always be the same kind of time, nor 'play' always in the same amount; since matter, energy, and life are always in some state of dynamic change and motion. Moreover, the way time would have to play with respect to the vacuums of either black holes or the vacuum of the universe itself, cannot always be the same in kind or amount. Again, because what these vacuums are to contain, is in flux.

There is a third type of Time which, like a weather pattern, affects a whole group of objects all at once at the same or varying rates; occasionally, or constantly, or anywhere in between; it's distinguished by being of a certain character which must interact in addition to the first two types of time, and only would indirectly touch the objects; in other words, this third type directly affects how the first two types of time interact with each other; but in a particular aggregate configuration: again, kinda like a localized or even rolling (or diffused) weather pattern, rather than a blanket or bomb, covering everything. Think of how the tsunamis of January '05 didn't work uniformly, and how the ripple effects of them were also not uniform; think of how it was an earthquake, not some other direct cause, which gave rise to the tsunamis. Chain reaction, then, of secondary or tertiary forces and objects, did the damage: rather than, the actual earthquake itself. So also, in time-to-time interactions, the matter and energy are not the primary objects, but are massively affected.

The fourth type is NONtime: Absolute Time, a constant now-ness which in religious English we refer to as "eternity" (meaning not only nonending, but nonprogressive). That Georges Seurat painting quality mentioned earlier, in connection with God. Here, the oft-imagined infinite universes of potential and nonpotential are known, but only ONE real universe exists (presently). [There will be two universes in eternity; one for those who never once wanted to believe in Christ, and one for those who did. Angels divide over the question kinda like we humans do, so the humans against Him will be in that universe with Satan&Co. Those angels who wanted Him will be in the same universe as we will then be.]

Only in the Absolute Time sense, could time be called quasi-geometric; else, it will play largely linear or curvilinear. Technically, Absolute Time is a NON-dimension, but here we'll artificially classify it as a dimension: the 'dimension' which all other dimensions, intersect at all 'coordinates'. So how these four, intersecting dimensions of Time work in the process of creating and destroying, travelling, and especially with respect to spiritual growth, can be quite different from equilibrating time. Yet, all four dimensions of time are designed to be equilibrating, since everything exists in hupostasis.

Hence, it's simultaneously true that the universe exists in the same 24-hour timeslice, but it is also true that some elements IN the universe operate on a marginally-different timeline. Some would ascribe to that marginally-different timeline, the character of another universe or dimension, but neither is true. Some would think therefore we can travel in time, but we can't. It's more like being able to step in and out of "time" as we normally know it, into a different (far faster), "time". A unity of bisections at each 'point'. Integrated together. Not wormholes, but having something of the function we imagine of wormholes. Atomic structures (as we know them) can't 'go through' these bisections. So "Light" as we generally know it, ends up acting as a barrier, since light is just another version of mass (light as we know it is never completely free of mass).

Further, atomic-based light is not the only kind of light there is, so the fastest speed in the universe is not the speed of light, but a bizillion times faster. That's why angels can just show up, having travelled billions of light years in space (from the third heaven), in the blink of an eye. That's why your prayers are instantly heard, that's why all the sins of human history could be judged in only three hours on the Cross, why He could just show up after the Resurrection through closed doors, why He could Ascend. We don't understand these things, and call them miracles. Well, they are, but to God they are natural. For angels, natural. So, that's why the Bema is but an instant of earth time. [At least, that's the impression I get from Revelation 4, since the opening of the Title Deed to Earth wouldn't begin until after the Bema. It's a conclusion I'm drawing.] Hence it's not science fiction, nor titillating, to say time operates in ways beyond our atomic-based universe, such that time interacts with atomic-based structures, and also with non-atomic-based structures (for lack of a better word), the latter group being a bizillion times faster and higher than the former.

So the characteristics of time variantly interact with finite objects, yet the types of time themselves, are absolutes by nature. Which makes sense, given that time itself is neither matter NOR energy. Type 1 Time is both intrinsic and extrinsic to matter-energy, lest there be a vacuum. Type 2 is wholly extrinsic but is 'inserted' when 1Jn1:9 is used (not a good description, but it's the best metaphor I can think of). Type 3 is, like Type 1, both extrinsic and intrinsic, but the latter is temporary, to balance as needed. Type 3 when localized probably accounts for how the sun could stand still for Joshua (or how the Red Sea could stay apart), IF God had chosen to do it via law He invented, rather than by an ad hoc act of Will. Type 4 is wholly extrinsic, except that it 'runs' and is the 'source' for the other types. Also, if you became a believer, Type 4 is part of your "born again" spiritual nature, which is why you can live in Type 2 Time simultaneously.

Alternatively, you could say there is only One Type of Time, #4, but the way it 'plays' in the life, follows the four paths above. That would actually be the more accurate description, better illustrating how it's finity which is affected. If we were to use the spacetime construct of a grid, you'd probably best depict this as two parallel grids that intersect at all coordinates, but the problem is God is non-spacetime in nature. I don't know what kind of diagram would best 'picture' His Infinity. Still, the parallel grids' idea demonstrates the dynamics of the relationship. You can see these dynamics play in real life via the "490" year system of promise God granted to Israel (and thus to the world): Mirroring.htm has the details. Shorter treatment is in Godindex.html's "A Question of..Time?" link. Don't read it if you have anything important left to do that day. It might be too shocking to work after reading it. At least, that's how I was affected by writing it.

So the popular idea that time does not exist extrinsic to an object but is artificial, makes no sense. Rather, the opposite: Time is an absolute, which a finite (object or) being experiences in 'dots'. Consequently, just as you can compress and unzip a datafile, so also time can be 'played' faster or more slowly from outside the entire mass-energy universe, within any part of it (yet not affect the other parts), or in any number of parts of it (contiguous or no) at once. We know of type 3 and 4 time from mathematics, as mentioned above about 2a+x=3a. What acts upon "a" and how it acts upon "a" varies formula output, yet the variables within the formula retain the same ratios. Type 1 could function like that also, since Type 1 is dual in nature, not solely intrinsic to the object. The difference between Type 1 and Type 3 time is major. The former is a pair of values which might not be equal, nor constant, but rather operate to maintain equilibrium; Type 3's temporary action(s) therefore impacts the relationship between extrinsic and intrinsic Type 1, even if only acting on one of them.

Example of Type 1 and Type 3 interaction: granite. Supposedly, granite is an anomaly of time. It contains a polonium (?) halo inside much slower-developing rock. The polonium (if that's its name, brain may be out) is supposed to have a half-life of 3 minutes. In which case, no halo could form in the other slower-developing minerals which make up granite. The "Startling Proofs" video often shown on TBN made a big deal of this: some scientist wrote a book on this anomaly. But it's not an anomaly if the universe was created in a nanosecond but the internal time of what became granite, varied.
So also, if the universe took even longer than is popularly deemed true -- again, because the internal time may be different for different elements. The external time may have acted to slow what passed for three minutes, to the polonium, kinda like cancer can be dormant; yet, that same external time may have acted to speed up the sequence of the normally-slow rock. Again, like a metastasizing cancer. In short, the nature of time matters so much to the theory of evolution (not to mention geology, space travel, etc) that you can only guess.

Example of Type 2 and Type 4 interaction: the Cross. What a conundrum this has been for me. By understanding Hupostasis, after all these years of wondering how God could make the Cross work, I finally 'get it'! Really, this example needs its own webpage, but I've no time for that (heh), so will make a too-short explanation, here. First, here's the conundrum: how can all the sins of history be imputed and judged in only 3 earth hours, ON His Body? For that's what the Bible says happened. The conundrum is that hell exists forever, so sinning there goes ON forever: so how can you impute, what never ends? The answer: create a counter-thought process which also never ends, such that every thought in hell, has a counter-thought in Him. Since He goes on living, His Thinking is forever occurring, too. And, forever occurring in those who will eventually live in Heaven (so to speak), starting with their being "born again" (anagennaw, sired again) down here; and especially, in those who believe in Him and get in and stay in God's System to Pleroma completion (Eph3:19, "finished the course", as Paul puts it in Timothy) -- they are living forever, too. So the solution is to set up two ongoing processes of sufficient value to make the ongoing sin processes, desirable: Isa54:1. Qualitative solution. That solves another conundrum, that of our being inferior forever, even once perfect and made a bizillion times more beautiful and powerful, than we are now. The process goes on forever. Of course, the requisite counter-thought Quality must be incredibly high, to satisfy Infinite God. But Infinity is qualitative, so change the quality of a counter-object, and you solve the problem. The process of transmutation, then, is the only solution. First in Him: then, begotten immaterially, to us. Wow. Couldn't be more important, to learn God's Book! [Mathematically, you could calculate the requisite offsetting present values much like you would for a sinking fund or defined benefit retirement plan; here, the future 'lump sum' would be that moment when eternity begins. We will each be 'worth' a definable, 'thought-capital' amount, negative and positive, at that point. So it's fairly easy (for God) to calculate what developments-of-Divine-Thinking are needed before that date begins. Even though, that beginning date is technically in flux, because Omniscience knows how our choices will result in a final ending date being the right one. God, of course, just plain knows all the answers, doesn't have to think them out, because by nature He is Infinite and hence Omniscient. In short, just as the Bible says a bizillion times and in a bizillion ways, from most mundane expression to loftiest.. God is making sons, not works. You are to become someone you initially were not.. and whatever else you or anyone else do en route, is but cannonfodder 'womb' toward this goal. So nothing in your life is small. So everything in life is designed to make you grow bigger in Him. Your choice, whether you want that to happen. If "yes", get in and stay in God's System.]

The analogous secular counterpart in the universe, is quantum mechanics, with focus on the functions related to self-annihilation of particles and changeovers of polarity. That tells you everything about how the Cross worked, and how never-ending sins and inferiorities, are made productive -- even to the satisfaction of Infinitely Holy, God. Awesome! So now you know why there are two universes in eternity, and it doesn't compromise Righteousness (God didn't want hell -- those who reject Him, want it as an alternative to Him). Whew: these conundra have bugged me for over 20+ years, and now they are resolved! Awesome!

Look: that quantum physics is one of the 'parents' of general relativity, is demonstrated by the uncertainty principle; in general relativity, that principle is the reason why you measure in "spacetime" rather than either space or time. So also, big-bang and steady-state opposites are both true, and they unify. For the way they interact, is simultaneous; there wasn't first the big bang and then steady state: they were born together, twins. Gen1:1 says the whole universe was created altogether in one instant of 'time'. So the universe is just like life: opposites co-existing, opposing and coalescing. Expanding and contracting (maybe, probably). In a dynamic equilibrium.

So clearly, our canned notions are way too incomplete for us to go running around claiming we know how old the universe or even man, is. It's time "the data suggest" went back to being a mere suggestion. Obviously what I'm writing here isn't claimed as the truth, either -- though I'm giving it my best shot. Point is, when you have so many material and fundamental unaccountables, you have to stop claiming a thing is scientifically 'proven'. Even a critical variation in radiation could so speed up or slow down the actual birthing process of the universe, we'd not know now, how long it happened, then.

But look! Lorentz' discoveries tell you the effect of time ON mass, thus proving time itself, is unimpacted, and hence extrinsic as well as, severally intrinsic (to the mass). So the former acts on the latter. If a flying mass is sped up enough, its internal timing slows down. So the converse could also be true, theoretically. So a guy could theoretically go zipping around the universe for a few years, but his body will age only a few seconds. So a God could speed up OR slow down the internal timing of anything, and we wouldn't know how long it really took. See: math always illustrates the unseen, so you need to beta-test a theory using math.

So in the larger sense, we're talking about how we experience speed and intensity, maybe not about Time, at all. In which case, it becomes even more impossible to date the age of the universe, since we really can't tell the birthing speed, development speed, etc. of all those supposed eons before we got here. We should still try to know. How often, have you gone looking for your car keys, only to find that stupid receipt you forgot to give your accountant -- just in time for him to do your taxes? So when on a quest for "z", often many other things will be learned. And in the quest for God, you can learn all things: He guarantees it, in passages like Eph3:15-19, end Romans 8. For God is all about, Relationship. He doesn't need praise or obedience: we do. Those things are necessary for our happiness, and they are compatible with Him, so.. we can get a relationship. It's not the childish or primitive idea of 'appeasing' God, being a good boy or girl. You talk to a child AS IF it were, but when the child grows up, he can see in the same words (The Word), the higher meanings. And that, is the only reason to want Time: to see, and be with.. God. Every other reason for time, is too.. um, boring.

Nonetheless, it seems conceptually easier to talk about different kinds of time, especially since by now most people fancy the sci-fi ideas of it. Well and good.

• all these types of time NEST;
• they all derive from the Timeless Nature of God;
• the relationship to matter-energy is Hypostatic, and
• the connections to matter-energy are at what seems most impossible.
• Finally, all Time relationships are top-down, not bottom up. So start your accounting for time with the uppermost truth (God's Nature, existence): then all else will be corollary, and fit the secular universe you know.

  "Most Impossible" takes some explaining. Think of the Cross: the impossible connection was, to impute and judge all our sins in Him Who Knew No Sin (2Cor5:21a). That very connecting, which Isa53:10-12 explains blow-by-blow, was an inter-transmission of thought (sin is essentially thought) being 'answered' by His "Mastery-of-Thinking" (suneisis, Isa53:11 LXX). The result was, judicially, a "sweet savor" (KJV) to Father; but in terms of Divine Physics a real bonding occurred. So the actual property of sin, which itself doesn't change (hupostasis), nonetheless has the effect of His Thinking. So it's good that the sin existed! No wonder Paul starts out Romans 6 the way he does: it's shocking! So I can't escape the conclusion that the cost had been "sin", but the Cost is Now.. Him. On Purpose. So His Continuing Thinking literally transforms the meaning of, though not the essence of, sin. But that's like continually finding a million dollars in your ugly couch each morning! So will you hate that couch? You'll have to think over this paragraph's import if you are inclined. It's staggering, "What God hath wrought". Marconi was right!

  Now let's take this new telephone invention down to earth, where we punies live. That Same Thinking, called "treasure in earthen vessels", has the exact same result when it happens in us. Not the same scope, obviously. Not as much Infinite Quality, obviously. But since the Holy Spirit is the One running the show, and we DO consent, then HIS Infinite Quality produces 'dots' of That Infinite-Quality Thinking, IN us. As a result, all 'attached' to us, 'partake'. So God doesn't (judicially speaking) 'hate' the ugly couches in our lives. Nor, us. Just like the two definite articles in Romans 9:13 denote justice scales tipped in Jacob's favor because he was positive (not works, but attitude and learning), so also, they tip in our world. Impossible, huh.

So it makes zero sense to claim that the lights we see in the sky 'tonight' aren't the stars themselves, but leftover images of them -- light which 'travelled' from eons ago! I've talked with people and read encyclopedias, and even Dr. Hawking's A Brief History of Time, and find this incredible claim in all of them. Is the claim a mere figure of speech, oversimplifying the truth? If so, it really needs to be more aptly stated, for many people actually believe that they're being told the light they see, isn't really but leftovers. How they can believe that, well.. once we thought it was healthful to bleed people, too...

For it cannot be true that ALL the light leaving a star takes X amount of time to reach man's eyes. Understandably, a lightbody throws off particles of itself when it travels, since it is essentially burning. These particles, tiny bits of mass, themselves are energy, so are light, alright -- but still bits of mass. Very small, no doubt: that's why the wave is able to travel at the speed of light (duh) but the large lightbody from which it came, cannot be travelling at the speed of light, and most of the light, is IN that body. So we're looking at bits of mass travelling, as well as at the main body of light travelling, and it's that real lightbody we really see every night when we look up at the sky, and in real time. The distortion would be due to angle of view, and the time element of distortion, would be minimal. We'd not be able to see the bits, but we would be able to see the large body from which they broke off. So when we look at the sky, we are looking at the real large bodies, which themselves are in the same 24-hour slice of time as we are: but, in a very far away 'time zone'. Then, the bits which do travel, we measure. So what we are calling the "speed of light" is really the speed of those mass bits, light itself being part of their nature.

Like Aristotle noted, it's rather the angle of vision and what's obstructing, not the time light takes to allegedly travel, which renders a thing seeable; including the timing of visibility. The light would have to be bright enough to see at such a distance, but it must be real time, not a delay. The object might be 92 million miles away, but IT is there now. So, I can SEE it now. Moscow is in a different time zone from Chicago. So too, a distant object in space is in a different time zone. But to view the object is not dependent on time, for the relationship ratio between viewer and object, is alone determinative. So travel distance doesn't matter, unless you are travelling there: else, only your current position vis á vis the object, and its brightness, matter.

It's also been said that the Sun's light takes eight minutes to reach us. That has nothing whatsoever to do with seeing it in the sky. It is there now, and what it throws off.. yeah, that takes eight minutes. So when an eclipse happens, it's happening in real time; and yes, it will take some minutes for the earth to be affected by it. But you can SEE it, immediately: that is, if you are in the right POSITION to see it.

So the reason why Roemer saw the Jupiter's moons' eclipses later, could equally be due to him being at a different earth position relative to them; which, he even knew; but (fortunately for us) he drew the wrong conclusion. The angle meant it would take longer in time to reach an equivalent viewing position; not, that light had to 'travel', in order for him to see the eclipses. This is even more obvious, since the moons reflect light, so his angle, the moons' angle to the Sun, etc. would be material to WHEN Roemer could see it. Surely the Sun didn't "travel" differently to the moons, nor to earth. Nor vice versa. So there are two discoveries here, not one: the idea that light does travel, but also the idea that the main view is of the lightbody moving in the same timeslice as the viewer's; such that the angle of view requires more or less time, to see the same 'picture'. Of course, we know this nightly, for the constellations don't show up in the same quadrant of our hemispheres, all year long. Of course, that's why we needed a theory of general relativity, since ANGLE affects PERCEPTION, and if you're measuring mass and speed, you better be able to adjust out perceptive distortions; particularly, at different dates and positions.

So light's visibility has to also be a current OPTICAL thing. Light has three properties, but the "luminiferous" quality need not 'travel', to be SEEN. Its actinic property may not need to travel either; clearly the calorific property moves (or at least radiates in decreasing intensity). If light did have to travel to be SEEN, then its light would get BIGGER the closer it came to earth, and you wouldn't see a constancy of light.

Of course, then we'd all be dead, for the light travelling say from Sirius, which is twice as bright as the Sun, would have fried us by now. Of course, it would be argued that heat dissipates: but if the optic quality is tied to the dissipation, the speed of dissipation must equal or exceed the speed of travel, for the SAME BRIGHTNESS to be maintained: which we know is not true. Also, light leaving Sirius 8 years ago would be added to by light leaving 7 years ago; six years ago; yesterday. So in any event, unless there's an offsetting dissipation of light in the travelling, Sirius would be much brighter each day than the day before: because, all that light is allegedly getting closer, and it's CUMULATIVE. For we know that Earth is not travelling at the speed of light, nor is the mass of Sirius travelling at the speed of light.

Also, we'd see light streaks, not light-points. Granted, if the angle of view fits within certain parameters, one would see points: but at some of the angle(s) of vision, streaks would be visible: since if light 'leaves' at second 0, the next light 'leaves' at the next second (really, faster than that), etc. so by a year you'd have 6 quadrillion 'points' of light in a SWATH, since the star or planet itself is moving. In short, we'd see NO darkness if light travelled, but each 'leaving' light would occupy a point in the sky relative to how long ago it 'left'.

Moreover, if all those lights were but leftover pictures as science contends, with no real star now giving off the light in that spot -- you couldn't even travel in space. You'd have to use the lights for navigation, and the stars, if not really there, would actually be somewhere else -- so could hit you in the face. Science claims that these stars are moving away from us because the universe is allegedly expanding; so of course we won't get run into; moreover, since they are in the future from us, we can't reach them in time to actually collide. Well, then we couldn't travel very far, and our maps would have to be extremely accurate, lest we collide into something. [I don't dispute that the universe is expanding, and it would be an elegant way to illustrate what Bible says about the devolution of mankind and the insertion of Church Age 'time'; but I'm not yet sure it's true. Here's the problem. If the universe were expanding, then each of the bodies would be farther apart every year. Would we know for sure, if the way we measure movement, ASSumed that more redshift meant farther away relative to earth? How do we know it doesn't merely mean the movement is going ahead of us, kinda like the front engine of a long train? So: if redshift really meant that the object was merely moving ahead of you, rather than moving away relative to you, then it isn't necessarily telling you whether the universe is expanding. Maybe science has other proof. I'd sure like to know what!]

Then there's the problem of even the provable fact that energy travels (the optic issue being separate and related to the main light body from which the energy is expended). Technically, We'd be MORE bombarded with more energy, every day it travelled. So: why haven't we fried by now? Because the star itself is a mass body, and IT travels; the light of it, actually radiates. So most of the radiation, is 'attached', as it were, to the burning star. What we call 'travel' is really only the perimeter of the radiation outside the optical spectrum (which is in the middle); which radiation, we can't see apart from special equipment. So what we can see, must be at the CENTER of the radiation: hence, in real time. And we can be sure of this, because if the lightbody didn't travel far slower than the speed of light, with most of the radiation 'attached' to it, all that 'leaving' radiation would have killed us long ago. [This ends up being an argument for universe expansion, from an independent angle: positing that we really would have burned up long ago if at least some increase in distance wasn't occurring relative to all those other lightbodies, aha!]

So while astronomers look in telescopes and think they are looking at the past, by that 'logic', they should say they are looking at the future; since, that distant object in the telescope IS so far away from us. Which also makes no sense. So we must be looking forward across a Large Slice Of Time, everything in it happening within the SAME relative period. The entire universe is experiencing the same 24 hours as we are. So just because OQ172 is 20 billion light-years away doesn't mean it's 20 billion light-years older. Maybe it is, and maybe it's not. That being the case, it's impossible to date the age of the universe, let alone, Planet Earth. Of course, some version of a steady-state theory of cosmology would necessarily claim a big series of timezones stretching across billions of lightyears of space: the distance tells you nothing about how old the universe is. So when some telescope 'spies' Halley's comet or a far-off supernova, it's Really Happening Now. Not, a time-delayed image.

Bible distinguishes between LIGHT itself (Hebrew: "or") and what bears/ generates/ reflects/ holds light ("ma-or"). Angels' bodies are said to be made of light. So they don't need all that balance, and can spend as much time as they like on Venus or Sirius, or wherever. They can just blink themselves to a location, don't have to spend travel time going to it. [Yes, there is life on other planets: angelic life. They were here first. We're here because there's an Angelic Trial going on. So one more reason to be awestruck rather than arrogant.]

In Revelation, Bible makes a big deal about how everyone will simultaneously see Christ coming in the sky at the Second Advent. So God's saying the universe is one big timeslice of the same 24 hours, too. Wow, think of the time researchers would have saved if they checked Bible (oh, looking at Luxor is historical research, but Bible is for foolish people). Oh well. But then, we also chucked Aristotle's explanation concluding the same law-of-optics rule about seeing light simultaneously. See how it's important to go back to ancient ideas for resolving modern middle-data conundra? For we all know that we have imperfect knowledge.

It would thus be a valuable scientific inquiry to learn what effect of all this radiating and reflecting light has on orbits and other motion. How life viability depends on the balance between the movement of heavenly bodies and the light they reflect. This balance issue is very like the role of displacement, it seems. You know, for a boat to be stable it must have particular dimensions relative to displacement (of water) so it can stay afloat. Same, for an airplane. Proportionality is all-important to displacement, and here the biggest displacement issue is radiation. If there are so many stars giving off light, they are giving off radiation: which as we all know, has a very long half-life, varying by which type of radiation is given off. We need radiation in a very precise balance; too little, and we die (i.e., bone disease from too little sunlight); too much, and we die. And it's cumulative. Which argues for an expanding universe, to keep all that radiation, in check. Balanced.

In his book, A Brief History of Time, Dr. Stephen Hawking remarked occasionally that it was a conundrum to cosmologists that there wasn't more mass in the universe: according to their theories, the universe needed more mass to hang together as it does. So, some posited dark matter and even anti-matter, to come up with an balancing answer. If I understood him properly, Dr. Hawking thinks something in quantum physics would resolve the matter question, with the result that the matter we think we know is there, is the right amount. I didn't see him say much about how radiation itself could be a 'unifying' reason for the integrity of the universe, if in balance at all times. After all, energy is just a different form of matter. And we know energy has holding or splitting properties -- which have to be held in check, balanced: or there couldn't be any matter, at all.

In short, the 'balancing' is done more by the positioning and movement among lightbodies, not by mass per se. Light then would be the determining factor, not mass; so you wouldn't need much mass; whatever mass there was, would be very important, but it itself, isn't causing the balancing. Rather, what's done to mass is what makes for the balancing. Conversely, if you had a lot of mass, the light itself could 'rule' it better, than mass-to-mass. Orbiting material must be a lot smaller around a mass, than around a star. And there' no competing with a black hole, except for a lot of Light. Else, everything would collapse into the black hole. As it is, black holes function as the garbage disposals of (probably) most galaxies, so that new stars can be birthed. Recycling. Yet the hole itself, is but a vacuum!

Bible is always saying that God is Light (i.e., in 1Jn), so it makes sense that light would be the governing dynamic of balance. Light for the soul, balancing the life. Salvation is what God does to you. Your consent isn't the power, but how God 'responds' to that free consent of His Own Free Will -- that's Power. See: by knowing the secular is supposed to always illustrate the spiritual, and by knowing first the spiritual, you can correctly deduce a whole lot of scientific fact with far less effort and expense.

Moreover, we know we can speed up or slow down radiation. So if we can do it (i.e., to make atom bombs and nuclear reactors), then why can't God do it -- in which case, maybe the earth isn't 3-5 billion years old (per Encarta, article on half-life), but maybe far older or far younger. So, the same can be said about how light's 'travelling' rays work: they might not be constant, at all. Maybe for what we know, to call the speed a constant of 186,000 miles per second, works: but that doesn't mean everything only operates that way and at that speed.

When getting the exegesis of Genesis 1 from my pastor's audiotapes, I was surprised to see God is quite adamant about this balance, repeating the idea in verses 14-18, and passim all throughout Scripture. When God repeats a thing, He's stressing its importance, as well as providing more information. In the New Testament, this same idea is ported over to a "Body" analogy, and stressed: after all, it's a Body for THE BODY, Christ. Heavenly bodies, get it? Greek words oikodome and oikodomia and oikonomia stress building and economy, meaning a system which is synergistic. Just like the 'heavens' surrounding earth. So Bible makes a big deal in Genesis, to forecast the big Eternal Relationship: "God is Light: in Him is no darkness at all", 1Jn1. So science can only profit by investigating the idea from a secular point of view. Everything in nature is supposed to represent something spiritual, as a mnemonic aid and clarifier. So, an intended future of people who obviously aren't constants, argues for a hugely dynamic universe not made up of too many constants. Rather, the picture both then and now, is more like quantum physics: where the particles can actually change nature depending on what relationships they have, with the surprising result (for now) of homeostasis amidst chaos.
So, then: we stress constants too much in science, thus missing valuable data about the relationships which exist; so we shouldn't then make constants into unchangeable 'gods'. Einstein's theory is based on a constant, still -- but to get to that place, the 'constancy' idea we had, needed to be pitched. Ok: but what if our new 'god' also isn't constant?

We now know that black holes balance a galaxy, with so many of them being 'centered' by at least one black hole. The latter keeps the stars which are moving away from it, in a kind of 'cage'. So the whole galaxy moves, staying together. That phenomenon rather well demonstrates what Bible says about counterbalancing. The Greek word "mataiotes" would be best rendered "vacuum" in modern English (but is too often translated "vanity"). So we were told about black holes, because sin creates them in us, as well: evil results from sin, and IT is the big danger, not sin itself. For evil is a substitute holiness; sin is merely a type of disobedience. Evil is needed to justify the disobedience with a replacing rationale. Hence religion, is the most evil of all. Even when, calling itself 'scientific'.

And Bible taught all that, in 1440BC: millenia before we humans ourselves discovered black holes. Still, it's great we did discover black holes, so to understand both Bible and the phenomena of black holes, better. See how synergy results? Look at what you learn!

• What we see, is 'caged' by what we can't see (God protects us, evil cages us);
• Balance consists more of energy (away from human power's black hole, choosing God's Power) than mass (works);
• What we are in Christ, is veiled (each 'star' can't see itself, sees the other stars, but only in a limited 'window', is gravitationally slow);
• Infinity is far bigger than what you can see.
Of course, the parallel analogies are in the millions. Kinda like, stars. The ancients made these parallels to the unseen spiritual, routinely, which is why so much natural law is discussed in holy books (esp. the Bible): but we moderns, deeming ourselves as gods, don't make such parallels.. unless it makes US even more 'godly' (i.e., astrology, spiritism, etc). [Nerd note: Evil cages, not sin, because the power of sin was broken at the Cross: see Romans 6-8. Evil is white to our eyes, i.e., all religion. So we need the Light of the Word, to escape the gravitational pull of what we can't see, and would mistake for 'good'.]

By the way, there were no initial black holes; they came about later, probably as a result of Satan's and/or Adam's fall; because it was Satan&Co. who created darkness: that's a theme threaded throughout Scripture. In eternity there will be no darkness, either. Quantum physics itself illustrates the interplay of God acting on chaos, even as Gen1:2 et. seq., using our native tohu wa bohu as black holes: wombs for the Bright Morning Star to be made in our souls, via learning Bible in God's System. Star is a synonym for angel in the Bible, by the way. As a result of which, you know a lot about stars. Even, some millenia ago. See what can be learned, if one doesn't laugh off the Bible as a tool for a fool?

Balance can be autonomically designed, kinda like a washing machine which you just click on, and leave alone. Then again, because the design is intelligent, maybe an Intelligence actually operates it, too. We humans always assume too much absent proper homework. For how do we really know it's "the laws" we think we see operating, or operators who do what we call the 'laws'. If I pick up my pencil, but you only see the pencil; or, if you really can't pick up the pencil but when you go to pick up the pencil 'invisible me' enables your hand to do that, you wouldn't know the difference. Ancients of course believed that the gods did those things, rather than believing there were impersonal laws (even if invented by the gods) at work. Aristotle, like many before and after him, saw a kind of system at work, and naturally concluded the impersonality of laws. Which makes sense: why should "the gods" do repetitive, meaningless, tasks?

Even so, what if "the gods" wanted to do certain things over and over? We eat over and over; we engage in our favorite activities over and over. We even work over and over, and often (dare we admit it) we like to work. So, since the child is not greater than the parent, but rather reflective of the parent, then.. what if God has the angels run the weather (which Bible claims)? What if they actually run either selected or all functions we see as "laws" of nature? I sure would enjoy making the Aurora Borealis each day, no matter how many times I did it. I would love to go into a black hole and make the quantum mechanics dance in order to birth a new star. Wouldn't matter if I were 'condemned' to do it forever: those impish quarks and anti-particles are fun! Moreover, my pastor constantly stresses, whenever he revisits the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union (God-man), that one of the worst pressures on Christ while He was down here, was that as God He had to keep on willing to hold the universe together. So that means His Humanity had to know that, and also will it, yet not peek into His Deity: since He is One Person With One Will And Two Natures affected by that One Will. Who of us could withstand that pressure?

When we decided that there ought to be laws to run everything, we prided ourselves on not having silly views about some god inhabiting a rock or creek bed; on not worshipping the sun or moon. Ok. But now we are making a god out of these laws. So we've run to the other side of the boat, still immature. Mature people appreciate a balance between personal involvement, and impersonal law. That's good, too, allowing for maximum synergy and freedom. So: do we really need to be so insistent that everything we call "natural phenomena" must be explained by a law?

So there seems to be much more to the properties of light than we are accounting for, and one of the BIG factors we don't account for in light, is that of Balance. Like Christianity, cosmologists sometimes view stuff bass-ackwards. Christianity always assumes a works-based relationship with God, which immediately tells you a hostile relationship with God is assumed. So, only the differential between its works and God's Nature, is called "grace". Which definition again reflects a hostility: you only get the "grace" in exchange for the "works", in which case grace is no longer grace, but debt. See Romans 11:6, 4:4-5. But the Truth is, it's All Grace, and no works. What we get are all Gifts. God doesn't need, anything. So Churchinanity dominates our thinking, and in the process, cuts out grace. Similarly, cosmologists tend to assume matter, not energy, is the balancing factor in the universe. They do this, because the energy is bigger, and it's faster -- so what stops it from annihilating everything? Like the Churchinanity crowd, the cosmologist puts up barriers where there aren't any. Matter is what's the matter, so needs light to make matter, matter less. Same is true in the spiritual life. The Light of the Word gradually renders all other interests, matterless. Because, only He comes to matter. It's not an obligation, but an all-consuming preference. Aka, Love: "we love, because He first loved us", 1Jn4.

Certainly we all know that everything from our cells to our atmosphere is in the most awesomely-precise Balance: one little jot different, and death occurs. Try stopping breathing, for example: you can't, because there is a balance between inhale and exhale. Of course, Balance is the sine qua non of hupostasis. Moreover, we know well how light affects the SPEED of either development or degeneration, in which case our notions of development time could be way off depending on our assumptions about the impact of light on development (i.e., radiation, evaporation, decomposition, etc). Since we now effectively base all of our ideas about time on light, if we mess up the definition of light, we mess up the definition of time. So not only evolution, but a whole slew of 'scientific theory' is not properly tested for sense. This is not good.

Again, a claim will be made that externals do cause transmutation, but when you pin down what these externals are, you realize that the internal beingness affected, would have to already possess the necessary target genes, for such a 'transmutation' to occur. You can't create a talking ape from a bolt of radiation, though surely the ape (if he lived) would mutate. So there has to be something in the brain and in the vocal chords, for the necessary mutation, to occur. In short, there are many externals, and yes they have effects; but for TRANSmutational effects, something internal to the organism must match sufficiently, for the right kind of mutation, to occur.

Moreover, the transmuting agent must be animate, for superior TRANSmuting animate characteristics, to result. Animacy can make/become inanimacy, but not the other way around. superior animacy can 'beget' a portion of its superiority in an inferior animacy; no inanimacy can do such begetting, nor an even-more-inferior animacy: radiation, for example, cannot 'beget' the faculty of abstract thinking in a life which didn't already have it. So external triggers/ improvements which build on what's already IN the organism are mere mutations.

That's why apes don't become dogs, nor amoebas, poets. No couch ever laughs, and Venus won't smile if you read that planet a poem, and people can't flap their wings to fly. There are real genetic boundaries, and they never 'transmute'. Because, the number set of attributes for a real species, is wholly dependent on its parents' attributes. Maybe many generations back, but still, the parents. So if a number of bird 'species' develop from one bird, you must ask if you are classifying as 'species', artificially. And they are all still birds. Not birds becoming dinosaurs. Maybe birds came from dinosaurs (which is doubtful, since dinosaurs couldn't fly); certainly, they could have come from any dinosaurs which could fly -- depending on the other facts. But you are still talking differentiation within a 'grand' species, not really transmutation. A bird is still a bird, whether ancient or modern. Man is still man, whether old or new, and once he stops being man, then and only then has he become truly a different species. It's all in how you 'name' the animals, whether you claim transmutation. But no matter how you name the animals, no transmutation actually occurs, without some past parent who had enough of the 'transmuted' characteristics, to engender the change. A rose by any other name, is still only a rose.

Of course, another cardinal rule of math is oppositeness. If there is immaterial, finite thought, then there would mathematically and logically be the opposite: immaterial, infinite thought. So there could exist a beingness which is both immaterial and finite, or immaterial and infinite. People have observed the existence of immaterial; math itself is both itself immaterial and demonstrates the immaterial, predictably, completely apart from human opinion. Science involves observation, so to repeat here an old observation that thought is immaterial is not out of kilter with the role, objective, and history of science.

Similarly, we see everywhere that matter/energy is acted upon by immaterial laws. These laws we seek to scientifically define and use, but the laws themselves are just there, and are always there. They don't change, but what they contact, does change. So, there is a set of laws/thought which has no mass, no energy, needs neither, but affects all. Can't be more obvious. It's just a question of properly defining what all this immateriality, IS. That definition will greatly affect our understanding of how and if "transmutation" functions.

People mix up tools with attributes. The tools are energy and mass, viz., the computer, internet, etc. But the actual propagation, though through the tool of reading, is itself non-energy/mass. For, no change or movement of any kind whatsoever is effected in the 'father', the thought on the page. Your brain might record the thought, but the actual propagation itself in you is not the recording of it. The recording, by contrast, is both evidence and result of the propagation, not the propagation itself. If you cut the brain hemispheres in two, the interaction of the thought process is observed to change, but at no time is the actual thought itself readable; only the bi-directional recording effects are discernible.

So we know there's a mistaken lumping of immateriality as a subset of materiality; that is, claiming that these laws are inside matter-energy, rather than what's true: the immaterial is separate, therefore superior and 'outside' matter-energy. In short, we have in reality one always-superior transmuting agent, "immateriality" (for lack of a better term); and one dependent agent, matter-energy (if defined as a continuum, spectrum). Now the first law of math isn't 'violated', anymore.

This mechanism can be best observed, and will be most illuminating, at its bend points. To illustrate what "bend points" means, I have to use Scripture again. We all know Christ died on the Cross: the transmutational effect of that action on those who believe in Him is called "born again" in John 3:16; "kaine ktsis" (new-in-species creation, consummate transmutational term) in 2Cor5:17; "sons of God in Christ Jesus" in Galatians 3. If you look into the context of Scripture verses like these, you find out that the Cross broke down the barriers between God and man via this Mediator/Messiah/Christ/Word of the Cross; so now the connections with man fulfill (big Bible keyword), "complete" the circle (another big Bible keyword), and Infinity can cycle (another big Bible concept, usu. pictorially/ metaphorically expressed by words like "heart", "mind", "run", "walk") inside finity without compromise.

In short, the Cross is the Hypostatic Bend Point at which all the fractious, failing, frustrating (sin) connections, Flip Into Fulfillment: into being positively synergistic with Infinity. Enhancements, now, within homeostasis, compatible with it, in "equilibrium"; no longer derivative rebellers (Rom8:10), barren. Isa54:1. All this, by means of Christ's thinking on the Cross in association with his bearing the imputation and judgement of all sin. Isaiah 53:5 (or thereabouts) depicts this bearing as our being "sewn up" in Him (Hebrew verb "raphah", surgical sewing-up in order to heal). Other verses depict what happened as a payment for a bride. So:

• His Hypostatic Union, one hypostasis, was the necessary structure for
• the second hypostasis, the hypostatizing of us IN Him; which fractalic child process occurred by means of
• His Thinking In Response to the imputation and judgement of our sins in His Soul and body, thereby Bonding His Thinking to sin.(Cf. also "sweet savor" verses, i.e., in 2Cor2:14-15.)
• That sets up a whole series of hypostases, wherein Christians get filled up with His Thinking while down here, and thus
• the eternal hypostasis of absolute, Infinite-Spectrum Equilibrium lasts forever.
• Because, God Is Absolute Thought. Genesis records how all God need 'do', is will a thing, however complicated (even a whole completed universe, Gen1:1), and it exists. Instantly. This means THOUGHT is the ultimate power. We know in psychiatry that what a person thinks can completely destroy him. We know from religion, marriage, and politics that what people think causes history. Our power of thought doesn't extend to imagining bread from stones and thus they exist -- but what power of thought we can observe argues for the other mathematical 'end' of the hupostasis, Total power.
• So the trick is to spot the point at which this hypostatitizing power causes a Change in its Object. When we can identify that point, we can identify the type of change.

To avoid saying "God", you can again resort to the secular: and no longer just math. For, the secular reflection of this spiritual meaning is pretty much everywhere. Economies-of-scale, demand-and-supply, multiplier effect -- all these economic doctrines are known to have measurable bendpoints. In physics, there's inertia, momentum, vector analysis, derivatives, each loaded with bendpoints everyone looks for, to check the moment of changeover. In math proper, there's fractals. In biology there's population dynamics (people, organisms, disease, growth). In short, you have bendpoints everywhere: each bendpoint tells you why the bend works, how important and what variableS there are, etc. So, by looking for these bendpoints, transmutation can be better distinguished from mutation, from adaptation, from mere individual genetic variance, etc. in all the causes, conditions, successions and relations.

And science desperately needs to go through this Exercise of separating genuine transmutation, from mere long-term change due to other reasons like mutation and adaptation. For "evolution" is not mere 'progress' over eons of time, but a particular kind of change dependent on transmutation. It's the transmutation claim which is wrong.

And, it's only the transmutation claim, which Bible refutes (well, it refutes that man is progressing at all by any means except via what God does to him; but science needn't worry about that latter refutation). So if a Bible believer doesn't know only the transmutation claim is refuted, then he'll hate science for saying things 'evolve', the term being too-often used by science, in the loose (wrong!) sense of any long-term progress. For, nowadays people use "evolve" to mean any ol' long-term change, and the Bible doesn't refute that. Most other religions have creation stories, and they don't refute the idea of long-term progress, which after all is supposed to be the goal of pursuing a spiritual life. It's only "transmutation" which is the problem.

So if you care at all about science, you'd want to be more precise. If you care at all about avoiding religio-political wrangles, you'd want to be more precise about what transmutation actually covers. Which, frankly, when you examine the results, would end up causing a whole lot of reclassifying, and far better true scientific understanding. Robbing the religious, of their demonizing claims. There won't be a demon to pick on.

Each hypostatic bend point, moreover, will have one salient characteristic to distinguish it from other kinds of joinings, as previously noted: the two items joined, should not be joined. It should be impossible to join them, but here they are, joined! For example, with respect to a unified theory of time, Dr. Hawking explained that he needed some third item to act like a unifier of the opposites, general relativity and quantum physics. So he explained the search for a pair of pants, as it were, in string theory. The theory waxed and waned in popularity among the scientific community, but didn't really constitute the unifier mathematically needed. So here -- how ironic -- everyone is looking outside the natures of the two antithetical theories, instead of whether one is the 'parent' of the other. Which means, you need another parent, which is the opposite of the other 'parent'. Well, what's the opposite of both, but a vacuum? As in, black hole. As in the biggest black hole of them all, the vacuum of space.
Hence the 'unifier' is the vacuum itself, and you already have plenty of information on black holes, to illustrate how it works: at some point, a spark becomes a raging fire, because it has 'touched' enough matter. At some point, enough matter has entered the black hole, for all those interacting particles to coalesce, to form a big whole (pun intended); at which point, they take on aggregate wholeness characteristics. When those impish quarks etc. multiply enough, they become a kind of Borg, which is essentially why the black hole ends and a star begins. Having become a Borg, they then behave according to general relativity at the Borg level, but remain the imps they are, at the subatomic level. Since the cause of a black hole in the first place is that a star collapses upon itself, eats itself up and everything else which can't withstand its collapsed 'pull', this elegant reversal well depicts salvation and spiritual growth: 'born again', to the Bright Morning Star (aka DayStar).

How one comes up with the mathematical formulas to prove and predict all this, well.. is for the experts to spend years hashing out. But with the big vacuum of the universe, housing a bunch of little black-hole vacuums, you can see the answer has to be that general relativity's behavior is a child of quantum physics, even if you can't yet see the specific formulas. Again, the universe itself is a vacuum, really; and because it is, there is an outward-pulling balancing against the native inward-pulling, depending on the mass and energy of the objects; since everything is in motion/state of change, matter converts to energy or energy to matter; when enough of this conversion occurs, the aggregate nature becomes opposite to what it was before. So, here, it should be impossible to join quantum physics and the theory of general relativity, yet you can see by the very laws of both, the former converts into the latter when enough mass is produced. From inside a vacuum. It's just a cycle, and eventually the aggregate breaks up again. Very simple, really. Just like disease, an idea which forms, the learning of Bible. Magnificent, awesome, shocking -- but simple to understand.

Now back to the spiritual parallel which this secular reflects. God is infinite. To create finity is a separatist act, and all the properties of finity are opposite those of infinity. So, finity by nature is essentially an emptiness: it must be filled up. Being separatist by nature too, it's a negative derivative (bouncing away from God directionally, in order to be independent). So if it gets filled up (for us, this means Bible Doctrine, Romans 8), then the tendency to fling away, is checked. So, that finity is filled up with balancing and discrete particles which eventually break out of the vacuum, having coalesced to get that independence: becoming a star. At which point, any lesser bodies, will be illumined and nourished, even as we are nourished by our Sun. For the Son of Righteousness will Rise with Healing in His Wings; and we are designed, to reflect Him. Replacing, the burned-out stars who pre-Adam, rebelled. That's the portrait the Bible paints as the future for Church; more prosaic terms are political, i.e., kings (1Peter2:5, 9, Rev1:6, 5:10). But everything revolves around a king; and he himself, is to enlighten his kingdom by means of his wisdom. But to get there, a king must be trained long and hard, and accumulate much learning. Very subtle, not at all easy.

This is so much truer with respect to the spiritual life: Doctrine in your head must reach critical mass for you to grow out of the vacuum of spiritual ignorance. It's only the mass of Doctrine growing in you which enables you to have a relationship with the One Who is of opposite nature to you. Hence it is always a pulling-away, pulling-toward gravitational battle: temptation still wants to pull you away, and Doctrine's gravity pulls you back. Eventually with enough Doctrine, you reach a spiritual 'orbit' that is homeostatic. Then you get bigger still; and, eventually like a black hole, you yourself are so weighty, everything revolves around you. God does all this, even as He did it to His Own Son. Fake humility is arrogance; Christ IS the center of the universe and IS the Most Humble One. For humility is objectivity. But that requires homeostasis in Doctrine. Until that occurs, there is the chaos, lessening but a little bit each day you get in and stay in, God's System.

So you can see that the more you know about the spiritual life, the more you can discern in natural law, and hence be a better scientist. Conversely, the more you know about science and then look at the Bible while in God's System, the better you can understand Bible. Which is why, I guess, my pastor always stops for LONG periods whenever coming to a natural law principle in a verse. When he covered 2nd Peter, we had the Laws of Thermodynamics for something like a month! Almost Daily. So, see? Learning Bible requires you to become like Adam, a scientist. All on God's Power, never your own. So human smarts are irrelevant. Case in point: I flunked the OCS exam, just out of college, because it was all on physics, and I'd never taken any classes -- but I "get it" about quantum physics, having only just read what Dr. Hawking wrote on the topic. Go figure. Go get in and stay in God's System. To learn God, not to get smarter. What's the value of being smart, if there's no God to be made smart.. for? All smarts will do in this world, is get you into one disappointment after the next. So go for the gold: Bible Doctrine.

Here are some tentative Examples, to illustrate this impossible-opposites joining, hupostasis. I call this "oppositeness". You could call it the law of opposites. Not necessarily that they attract, but that they need to be bonded in order for equilibrium to occur. Their stability depends on that particular bonding. It's not always pretty, either.

• Biology: male-female. We are so used to those opposites for mating everything from people to keys and locks, we never think how impossible it is that the two antitypes, could even get along. But many a divorced person would easily call the pairing impossible...

• Cosmology: black holes and galaxies, quantum physics and general relativity. Frankly, you can see these things taught in the Bible, but the expressions are so well-known, we don't extrapolate out the ramifications at a math-like level. A time to be born, a time to die; Greek word mataiotes to describe a 'black hole' of a person you should avoid; how the Son is like the Sun, around Whom everything revolves; many more analogies from everyday life.

• Economics: the rich benefit the poor, not vice versa. No matter how the rich guy spends his money, no matter how evil or profligate he is, his spending buys jobs; and even, whole industries, because everyone wants to cater (or take from) the rich. It ends up meaning that the worst thing you can do to the poor, is to tax the rich. Perfect analogy of Christ. Perfectly unacceptable to the world, too! It's not rocket science to test this. Get yourself a SIMMS (sp?) game, and play with the various tax ploys. Or, just do it in your head. Capital formation requires concentration of wealth, and without that, you've got no capital base for a growing economy. Government can't be the holder of capital; capital must be in private hands who have complete freedom of use. Communism, socialism, any kind of communalization of property never works. It's not a political thing, it's just basic math, basic natural law (law of dissipation, how stars form or die). No one can go against the laws of gravity.

• Interpersonal Relationships: the weak always control the strong. If the strong are noble, the strong will be ruled by what the weak, need. If the strong are ignoble, they will be ruled by what the weak, approve. But there's a flipside: the weak can never hurt the strong. You can only hurt yourself. So all the interim injustices and abuses, are equilibrating. It's no accident that evil nonetheless blesses: it's a law. Run from the outside, obviously (so don't go looking for evil/trouble, like Satan tempted the Lord to do, in the 2nd Temptation in Matt4).

• Politics: What's mediocre, always wins. What's good, always loses. What's done to improve, always wrecks. Less is more.
• Religion: What's apostate, is always popular and venerated as "right". What's silly, is always worshipped. What's loud, is always praised; but what's quiet, is always despised. The greatest evil is white in color, not black.
• Spirituality: Doing nothing is more spiritual than doing something.

EndNote on Universe Expansion: "Hypostasis" is also key to correctly apprehending the claimed 'anomaly' of the universe expanding yet dying at the same time, which was the cover-story topic in Time Magazine in 2002. If you know math, if you understand that infinity necessarily means that its play upon finity results in an ever-ongoing expansion at 'both ends', you can see the 'dying' displays the negative end, and the expanding, the positive end. Of course, what science currently means by expanding-yet-dying is an increasing trend toward ending altogether. Kinda like, cancer.

As noted earlier in this webpage, the assumption that the universe is expanding is based on the supposition that light travels, and hence we conclude from what we call lightwaves' redshift, that the stars are moving away from us. When instead, the redshift just might indicate their direction is forward of us, and we might all be moving (relatively speaking) on the same 'sheet of paper' (curved or not, doesn't matter). Maybe the whole 'paper' is moving through another universe, kinda like a plane moves through the sky. We'd get the same readings as we do now, if that were true. But if the universe is truly expanding, then it's a depiction of the aggregate 'life' going from babyhood to maturity to old age, to death. Or, more properly speaking (the way Scripture puts it), ashes to ashes, dust to dust. A corpse expands with gases before it dries up and then disintegrates into dust.

There's a lot to argue the universe is expanding from the Bible, especially with respect to Time. The Church Age is an insertion of time, designed to develop the Body of Christ so the rest of time (1057 years) can be 'redeemed'. So if time were a constituent part of the universe, or acting like one, then the universe indeed would have to expand at the perimeter (so the center can stay stable), allowing for the necessary time to pass. You could say that it even started that way (big-bang theory), or that it started out as a nice sheet of maybe-circular rubber, but in equilibrum (steady-state theory, sorta); the Church Age's insertion of time thus increases either (or both) the expansion rate (big-bang) or the size of the rubber sheet (steady-state, sorta). Because, the universe wasn't supposed to last beyond 1144AD. You can search on that date in Part IVa and Mirroring.htm.

So science should be able to find some kind of mathematical/physics rules about the position (and mass, etc.) of the Earth to help them better understand both the universe's expansion, and upcoming demise, especially since life on this planet is, according to Genesis, sustainable only due to the balance of heavenly bodies around Earth. If as Hubble claims all the most-distant galaxies are really moving away from Earth itself, then you should be able to prove that Earth is ground zero for that chain reaction. Although, since the universe is in flux, maybe the future position (etc.) of the Earth relative to the size and other characteristics of the universe then would be the right formula. In short, I don't know if the 'Earth-is-ground-zero' formula is a constant, or not; I bet not. Maybe a formula of relationships sufficient to cause this reaction could be developed to start a working hypothesis. It's probable, though, that the correct mathematical relationship-of-position (etc.) to result in such a massive trigger will have an imminency characteristic: so the trigger is easy to set off at any time, but is not automatic. In any event, while trying to develop/find the formula, much would be learned (and maybe discovered) about physics.

Then again, it might not matter at all where the Earth is relative to the rest of the universe, if the idea that the universe is the same everywhere you look, is the real controlling factor. Thus any body which deviates too much from its rightful nature and position relative to the rest, would be the trigger; so it's not the position of Earth, but what happens to it, that could trigger the destruction.

For the real nature of the universe, is instead a 'mix' of 'big bang' and 'steady state'; these two are but two parts of a whole answer. For, Bible doesn't say there was a big bang: one second the universe wasn't here, and the next second it was completely here, verb tense of Gen1:1 in Hebrew or Greek. So it wasn't a 'big-bang', but rather, the essential vacuum which IS the universe, suddenly having matter and energy 'fill' it. So it's the essential vacuum nature of the universe, which explains why it holds together, even as a black hole is a vacuum, which is why stuff gets sucked into it; so until that stuff is so BIG it explodes the 'bag' of the black hole (think of your vacuum being overfilled, and you get the idea), it stays within. So the emptiness and the radiation of the universe is what accounts for the holding together, not the matter. We'd need less matter, if we have more radiation; we'd need more emptiness, not less, to avoid a complete breakdown. That's why I think implosion (fusion), not explosion (fission), is the likely description in 2nd Peter for the mechanics of the demise of our current universe. Well, it's expansion, or an imbalance of sufficient mass-energy to overcome, as it were, the larger holding vacuum; as a result, a ripping-of-the-vacuum, hence implosion to return to a vacuum state, then explosion: a cycle.

In sum, a unified theory of the origin of the universe is just like the Hebrew and Greek tense of barah/ktizw (to create ex nihilo), in Gen1:1; so its suddenness, is what 'big bang' theory is based on, and the filling, is what 'steady state' theory is based on. both are observing parts of the answer: they are not contradictory. By the way, Gen1:2 begins after an undefined interval, during which Satan &Co. trashed up the earth, so God the Holy Spirit 'dawdled' six days in restoring it, so to teach man a basic lesson about time. So you have no primordial (pre-Satan's fall) black holes. [The darkness depicted due to Satan's fall isn't necessarily due to their conflict creating black holes. I'm not sure how you could try to detect it, but there was a period during the Ice Ages where NO light penetrated the planet. Whether that is an earthbound problem, or a darkness throughout 'our' segment of the universe, or portions of the universe, I don't really know from Scripture, so I can't guess as to the secular counterparts. All we know from the Biblical description, was that an Ice Age had been going on; and we don't know, when the lights-out period, began. The area given to Adam for his 'park', is roughly Asia Minor, the Middle East and the Caucasus -- so that doesn't help pin down which Ice Age is in view. No new Ice Age is mentioned after that, since with Adam's fall, he and the woman immediately were able to propagate for the first time. So maybe the time they were in "Eden", was roughly 6,000 years (ending time of last Ice Age, and estimated fall date of 4106BC)? No, that's not necessarily true either, since the glaciation we know of, didn't necessarily reach Adam's 'park' area in the first place. So he could have been there a lot longer, and the ice melted relatively slowly (which would be necessary, for his area to not be inundated). I need to do some more homework on it, someday.]

So: what seem like competing theories, actually comprise a hupostatic whole. The "big bang" means a suddenness, whereas "steady state" means an 'always-was'. Hence because they are both parts of the whole answer, the resulting universe can be dynamic, expanding and contracting, with some ultimate demise. So the unity, is this: suddenly the vacuum was filled. At least, enough for the homeostasis, to result. So whether the universe is really expanding again I could justify Biblically, but I doubt whether redshifting only means that the distant galaxies, etc. are actually moving away relative to earth. Redshifting seems rather to mean simply that they are out ahead. Maybe I don't understand the explanation of redshifting enough, but there has to be other significant evidence, if it's really an expansion.

EndNote on God's Hypostatic Evolution/Transmutation Plan: By the way, if you are a Christian, you shouldn't be anti-evolution, but only against the stupidity of the current evolutionary construct in science; and that, only because the construct violates even math. Frankly, even the current flawed theory of evolution proves God exists, if you like. You can say, "yes, it proves God exists, for how did the big/little/gradual-evolving-universes "bang" get here in the first place?" You can also say, "no, it proves God doesn't exist, because things can grow bigger on their own, and the big (etc) bang just WAS." See, you can use Gen1:1 or say the bang itself is genesis. For, God isn't into bludgeoning you with the reality of His Existence. If He were interested in that sort of thing, He'd not have bludgeoned Christ with our sins. [Technically, they are called javelin stabs, in the Hebrew of Isa 53-55, passim.] So instead, Matt7:2/John 3:16/2Cor5:21 is the free-will matrix God instituted, which every other verse in the Bible constantly and deftly reflects.

Here's a bigger reason why the Christian shouldn't be anti-evolution: God's entire plan can rightly be said to be evolutionary, though by God's definition, not man's. (God's definition is in 2Cor5, esp. v.17, in Greek: "kaine ktisis" means new-in-creation-species, not new-in-time.) God's plan of transmutation is accomplished spiritually, by His Truth being poured into you with each discrete consent; and it is direct between God and you. There is a macro component to this Plan, which basically operates via the progressive spiritual covenants to mankind. Christ is the ultimate transmuted Person, because He BECAME "The Way, the Truth, and the Life."

Hence, over the eons of man's existence on earth, there are two evolutionary trends ("evolution" by God's definition, not man's). The first is progressive, illustrated by the fact that the Church has the greatest spiritual life in history; the second is regressive, in that rejection of the progressive covenants eventuates in an increasingly-worse disbelieving mankind. This rejection, being a rejection of God, is a "derivative" caroming off Infinity, so has an EXPONENTIAL effect. Ergo the Tribulation ends up having to occur; that's why man's biological life expectancy has dropped so much since Adam's day. That's why the universe is expanding, yet dying at the same time, because the initial perfect environment is getting steadily tainted by ever-worsening rejection (see last half of Romans 8). That's why, though science is puzzled about it, you find two spiritually-degenerated populations of humans living like animals during the same slice of geologic time, one slightly more human than the other: Cro-magnon and Neanderthal. Cave man. But Adam didn't start out like that, as we all know. Of course, we see the same sort of phenomena today: the primitiveness of the world remains, and alongside it, great advance. How is it that the primitives STAY primitive, despite all the advance?

Because, THOUGHT is the real power, and thought either purifies or taints not only your soul, but everything else. Just a little bit each time. So, in aggregate, over eons of time, all this negativity in mankind has made living steadily shorter and more "brutish": meaning, more like animals. Even though we humans have an increasingly-civilized veneer to cover that fact up. Just as, Adam covered his genitals thinking his nakedness shameful, so also we humans have built on that sin-nature skill and are thus far more adept at covering up our DEvolution into animalism. Animalism is lusting for the fight, for being a survivor, for being king-of-the-hill. We've greatly refined and expanded, 'evolved' animalism since the days of the Neanderthals, have we not? After all, back in the days of Job folks were far better at thinking: yet folks today have trouble reading and understanding the Book of Job.

The second, DEvolutionary trend is ironically demonstrated by the insistence on impersonal causes for 'evolution'. Degeneration is always marked by an increased demand for, and appeal to, outside impersonal 'forces' which one can control or manipulate. All the astrology and spiritist/ channelling movements, Wicca, etc. are of this type. By learning some mantra, lighting some candle, chanting some invocation you can control the powers. It's all the rage, now. Very mainstream. Would have been laughed at, even a generation ago. So, too, in politics, science, interpersonal relations we are constantly developing 'laws'. Even sex is religified on video, a thing you must learn to 'do' it right! I'm not kidding, it's an ad in respectable magazines, not the kind sold in porno shops! So we are really degenerating, when we march on Washington, etc. One idol or another.

So in our quest for learning all the 'natural' laws of the universe, we forget that any natural law, would be there only for inanimate objects. Animacy would have a 'law' about its structure as well, but if a soul, then will can choose. So if we are truly evolving, we'd be wanting fewer laws, not more of them. For if we are truly evolving, then the role of will would be more important than impersonal laws we can't change. In which case, the idea of angels maybe running much of what we call natural law, would be something hopeful, not fearful.

And, logical. for if Will can choose, it can choose how to act on the inanimacy. We humans constantly make choices and constantly act on inanimate objects. So, then: what are the angels doing? What inanimacies can they interact with? The universe was instantaneously created. Whether the angels, who were all created at once, were at that moment all instantaneously created, I'm not sure. But whenever that angel-creating moment was, surely the universe was a gift to them. Being as angels' bodies are composed of light, then all in the universe would be impacted by their own natures. God is always making a point of this: because of Satan's fall, darkness came into being. (The Holy Spirit restored the earth, but He didn't erase darkness, since the Angelic Trial isn't yet over.) Because of Adam's fall, "sin entered the world". So, planet earth was directly affected.

So how much more, is the universe decreed to be affected, by what the angels do? Acquinas spent a lot of time trying to figure out what they were doing, i.e., in The Treatise on the Six Days. So we actually have one law operating at the universe level which, as we all know, operates every day in our lives: animacy acts on inanimacy. Animacy has its own 'internal law', the properties of its nature; also, the properties of Will. Inanimacy, has its own 'internal law' of its own nature, but no soul. In between, are non-soul lifeforms such as plants and animals, microbes; some of these have limited properties of will, hence limited intelligence and limited self-awareness. Animacy and inanimacy exist in their own spectra; each form, having its own native properties. So in sum, "the" law is the interaction of all these properties, some of which, are affected by a Will choosing that effect. How efficacious that will is to achieve the result, is in turn affected by the properties native to the one willing. Very simple. Same essential structure as our own lives. Couldn't be more provable.

If I were looking to prove God's existence in one way (and I'm not, it's self-evident He exists), I'd pick the fact that all this existence, is suffused with aesthetic qualities. There's a whole lot of stuff which has almost no worthy intrinsic function, but which is just plain beautiful. Most of the useful stuff, is ugly in some major way. "Unpresentable parts", those which reproduce -- quipped Paul in 1Cor12. So, see? Takes an immaterial nature, to appreciate aesthetics. If an entire universe is aesthetically configured, then "God" did it. For who could appreciate that large an aesthetical construction, but "God"? I mean, it's downright humorous, the kinds of animals and plants which exist, especially with respect to eye, nose, and mouth shapes and placements; humorous, the way the stars and the planets fit together. You have to be human, to appreciate the configuration of a constellation. So you have to be GOD, to see it all; every day we find new beauties to admire. So God exists. I don't care how many supposedly-intellectual arguments are advanced anti-God, none of them can defeat the fact of big aesthetics, which only "God" could see.

Of course, we now feel intimidated by the idea that what we thought was this impersonal force of weather, for example, being consciously enacted, withheld, etc. And the ancients would naturally want to talk directly to, whatever 'gods' were managing stuff which impacted them -- having rejected the Real God, they go to those inferior to Him. So the orbits, the dynamics of a black whole, etc. -- some of what we see happening, is 'natural' law. But the rest is God's or angelic volition acting on the inanimate. Just as we humans do, so also those above us, do. For surely the angels aren't just sitting around twiddling their thumbs, any more than we would. See how simple and provable and logical, is the answer? See how it's only prejudice against God, which doesn't 'see' the answer?

Now, evolution nor devolution cannot come from the creature itself. That violates the first law of math, which is part of God's Attribute of Truth. (Math is essentially truth in math-symbol form.) So, we know God's Power is superior. Ah, but so is Satan's, since he was created the highest of the angels. So, all man's religion and transmutation ideas are Satan's transmission of his own superior hypostatizing thought (see 1Tim4:1, 2:26-3:7, 4:1). Also, via this transmission he satirizes God's Real Transmutation Plan. The idea is as old as the Garden; the temptation to take the so-called 'forbidden fruit' is a transmutation temptation. Oh yeah, Isha baby, you'll transmute into being as smart as God, if you but EAT this fruit... Notice that the Tree was called "The Knowledge of Good and Evil", not "the Knowledge of God". So notice also that Adam and the woman did not have the "Knowledge of Good and Evil", but did have some of the Knowledge of God, from God Himself. What a sorry exchange, then, to transmute yourself! See how Satan transmutes our thinking into devolution? Like Adam and the woman, we can choose the Knowledge of God, Bible Doctrine, or.. the knowledge of good and evil, fantasizing that such knowledge makes us like the Most High. Just like Satan, really. Ooops.

Then there's Genesis 6, the promise of which was also transmutation, becoming half-god (really, half-demon) if you were the kid of intercourse between a god and a human. All polytheistic myth is based on this 'promise'; most notably, Greece and Roman culture. Which, if you read the Appendix to the "Thinking Out Loud" series, you'll learn that Greco-Roman polytheistic values are constantly played upon mankind. To make us transmute into a god, you see. Animism and reincarnation are just other versions of the same thing, but they neatly de-personalize "God" into an amorphous thing. But with plenty of Satanic bite. In one such book, the reincarnation process is described as "drinking orange light" in "Paradise". Yeah, that's what Hades is like: fire! And Paradise is dark now, since it is empty. Gives new meaning to the Koranic catchphrase, "In Paradise there will be shade", uttered about 600 years after Paradise became empty. Yeah, Satan has something to offer for everyone who wants rebellion. And we all do!

All "God" questions are between God and the individual, never among individuals. To make a "God" question a condition of human approval among individuals is to interfere with the individual's freedom with God, and is worse than murder (since God is bigger than man): see Romans 2. So "God" questions should never be a condition of political or social structure: for, then man commits the worst evil, making belief about God also a loyalty 'oath' to man. A greater hatred of God cannot exist, than the one which says, if you don't believe as I do, then you are bad/ I should punish you/ society should punish you/ law should punish you.

If a society wants to use religious models (i.e., the 10 Commandments) as a guide to its structure, well and good, but only as secular ideas. For, if that society then imposes the religion on its people -- it will crash and burn. Even the only true theocracy to-date, that of the LORD for Israel, separated the spiritual code from the civil code: the "ordinances" ("dikaiomata", in inspired Greek Old Testament, aka "Septuagint", LXX) were never civil or criminal laws. The 10 Commandments ("entole" in LXX) and the "judgements" (krimata, in LXX) were never spiritual laws. The spiritual and civil dovetailed; and yes, as a good believer you obeyed the civil, but you obeyed to God voluntarily. Civil could never punish spiritually, and vice versa (parallels are in 2Cor5, 1Tim2, Rom13, Heb13).

If you search the Gospels on "adultery", you find this distinction employed by Christ to remove non-criminal sexual sins from the civil law. Adultery was in the 10 Commandments, so all other non-criminal sexual sins, not being listed, are regarded as lower and subsumed (i.e., consensual homosexuality, prostitution, etc). So to remove adultery, which requires consent, removes all like-category sexual sins from the juridisdiction of human law. Note how He does it: because even thinking of the act is a sin, it is a worse sin than the law can adjudicate, and no law can sentence a thought. So only God can adjudicate the issue. The act follows the thought: but Christ did not condemn the adulteress, so no one else can judicially condemn like sins. How deft of God to show us how separation between spiritual and civil, works. Notice also how deftly violent and non-consensual (i.e., one person too young) sexual sin is still under human-law jurisdiction (i.e., rape, pederasty, etc).

So if you are a Christian, you should adamantly support the separation of church and state. Which is the opposite of what the 'Christian right' does (nearly everything about the Christian right is neither Christian nor right, so far as I can tell). So if 'science' ideas are anti-Bible, we shouldn't use Bible as if it had political jurisdiction. Using Bible to determine ideas, fine; using Bible to show origin of an idea, fine; but the idea itself should be evaluated on its own merits, secularly, since the individual has his own relationship toward God and that relationship is inviolable. To politically crusade in the name of Bible is ipse evil. Doesn't matter how right Bible is, God Himself has always separated the powers of church and state.

Given the need to keep church and state separate, I don't know if it's a good idea to teach "creationism" in the schools. For one thing, many religious people find it offensive to consider any other idea than the ones they think right, so would be very upset if not only evolution is taught in the schools, but other religious ideas, as well. On the other hand, maybe a cursory mention that 'evolution' isn't the only possibly-valid theory of man's origins, would suffice. Maybe a course summarizing the central tenets of the world's religious ideas would be okay, since religion is in the world, and being familiar with it helps a kid in the same way as any other broad-based learning is helpful. But parents might not like that approach. Frankly, the child could better learn in the home any creationist accounting. Each school district and its voters should decide stuff like this. If people would stop trying to claim godlike authority, and just teach information in classifications, like 'commonly accepted', 'other views', etc., children could learn to think sooner, and wouldn't be so influenced by what parents consider 'heretical'. Yeah, that pipe dream will never happen...

Bible's original languages leave no doubt about what God liked to do, but it takes some years of daily digging in the inspired original-language Scripture, to even know what God really says. Then, you have to think over what you learned every day, all day, all night. Just like Moses told the people in Deut6. Cry all the way to the bank, you Word-blessed Christian...

Translations are so ambiguous and inaccurate, particularly on any politically-sensitive topic, you can read anything into Bible that you like. So everyone has his own 'take' on Bible. On science too, for that matter. Who the heck cares? Don't we have more important things to worry about, than our own interpersonal agreement on topics none of us can completely know? Heck, you can spend years researching something or accounting for something, and one teeny missed speck can destroy all those painstaking years. One drug taken the wrong way, can paralyze you for life. So to bludgeon each other over what we think the truth is.. what a waste of time.